reeko

Nope, because regardless of your campaigning credentials your stated reasons for cycling on pavements don't add up. You say you want to reduce your risk but that would be equally achieved by pushing your bike instead of cycling. You also imply that it is part of your campaigning in some way, but unless you undertake this activity in a place where it is likely to draw the attention of the authorities then it is a very weak and ineffective protest. In my opinion you deciding unilaterally that pavements are now shared space weakens the growing influence that cyclists in London are beginning to wield, as you provide an example of cyclists ignoring the rules of the road at their convenience and you encourage other, potentially less considerate and accomplished cyclists to do the same. Even the best activists get it wrong sometimes (see Ken and the bendy buses), and in this case I think you are potentially harming rather than promoting the interests of cyclists in London.

I don't see the connection to your deciding to ride on pavements, other than perhaps you should know better. Have you led / been involved in any direct action involving cyclists using the pavements to highlight the dangers of the road?

I don't see where I have been presumptuous,. All my conclusions have been drawn directly from what you have written. You choose to ride on the pavement to reduce risk to you. You choose not to push your bike, even though this would reduce your risk by the same amount, therefore I concluded that the convenience of getting home a bit quicker and not having to get off were factors in you choosing to cycle on pavements. If this is incorrect then please explain. You made statements such as you would love to get caught and argue the piece through the courts, but you have not indicated that you have taken any direct action to increase the chances of you getting caught, hence my conclusion that your stance is more for your convenience than from any political motivation. One definition of arrogance is "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights". I would argue that on the evidence of this thread you fit the bill much more snugly than me, when I need to use the pavement when on my bike, I get off and push. Thems the rules

I have read everything you have written, I just completely disagree with your rationale, and maintain that the way to encourage good behaviour and elicit positive change is for everyone to play by the rules. Picking and choosing as you just gives other cyclists the right to do the same, which further fuels the anti cycling lobby. If you want to break the rules becuse it is more convenient for you to reduce your risk at the expense of pedestrians then fine, but don't pretend that it is a political act or that you are doing other cyclists a favour.

Fine, if you want to dress your choices up as direct action, how about taking a ride up and down the pavement of downing street. until you do, your cycling on the pavement is just you choosing to ignore the rules of the highway to suit yourself, making you no different to all the cyclists that people regularly complain about.

Sorry Lady D, why is it OK for you to pick and choose when to obey the rules of the highway, and not for others, when do you draw the line? I see couriers regularly crash red lights but they are also some of the most skilled riders on the road and are very good at avoiding trouble. Is that a good enough excuse for their behaviour? No - then roads being too busy for you to cycle on is not a good enough reason for you to cycle on the pavement when you can easily get off and push. It is precisely this kind of attitude that helps give us all a bad name and increases overall agression against cyclists. If everyone played by the rules then we would all get along alot better.

OK lady D, unless in parks or designated shared use, pavements are for pedestrians and roads are for cyclists. As your tag says, cyclists are TRAFFIC, and if no other traffic can go on the pavement, then why should cyclists.

Sorry Lady D, If the road is too dangerous get off and push. That way everyone gets home alive with no major injury. My mum was badly knocked by two kids riding bikes on the pavement. The jolt aggravated her sciatica and she ended up being hospitalised. Pavements are for pedestrians. End of.

I have to say I agree with taper. To preface, i am a responsible cyclist. I do not cycle on pavements - they are for pedestrians. On my daily cycle route there is only one light I jump. I do this routinely for my own safety. Two cyclists obeying the highway code here have been killed and the junction has not been changed to reflect this. Cyclists face a number of hazards on every journey. When I first started cycling the biggest and most dangerous hazard was undoubtedly car drivers being oblivious to your presence. I once had a car stop at a junction. I was in the cycle lane on the inside of it, and a rear passenger opened their door straight onto my path. I was saved only by my newly relaced brake pads. As there has been an increase in the number of cyclists, my perception is that drivers have become more aware and I have experienced less of this type of hazard. In the same time frame the prevalance of personal devices has meant that pedestrians are now a much greater hazard. At least once a week a pedestrian with an I-Pod or similar steps in my path without looking. So far no direct hits, but it is only a matter of time. My bright idea is that police PCSOs ets should be able to fine cyclists, driver and pedestrians displaying bad behaviour and use that fine to reward cyclists drivers and pedestrians displaying good behaviour. So make the boy racers give their ?20 fine directly into the paws of those cyclists who have obeyed the lights. Punishing bad and rewarding good behaviour would be really effective at improving overall behaviour and would stop councils/ police using fines as a cash cow.

k;adz;kolvhnja Sorry - nodded off there and head hit the keyboard

Now then just registered first time poster Martin, The point being made is not whether any explanation from Paul is plausible, but that from the responders here no one cares a jot. Whilst implications that he is a scam artist may be actionable, pointing out that he is dull as ditch water is not. Yours Dr Reeko Ph.D. Cantab ('tis true you know)

The latest installment in Open Plan Office PAULINE doesn't work fridays. All is quiet

Hopefully they will be identified by their oyster cards. Good job on the avoidance, five guys is not what you want to be facing at midnight on an empty stretch of road. Hope he isn't too shaken.

Yep had a varied experience of Locale. Great value if you bring the kids along. Also once had a great steak there, but have also had very average food there. Sometimes restuarants just come to the end of their natural life and it is time for them to move on and make space for something new. It will happen to us all

Ooohhh you are on curtain. Stay tuned for the next installment.

UPDATE: Dale 'Bossman' Winton is back from his holidays - browner than ever. I had a word in his ear yesterday about the level and type of noise coming from his team. Managed to be quite civil as PAULINE has piped down a bit since his return and I don't have a permanent headache. As I suspected his response was luke warm and somewhat passive aggressive. Today he took every member of his team aside one by one and right behind me gave them a loud and clearly not sincere ticking off about noise. They are now regularly and flamboyantly shushing eachother. Sigh. On the bright side, we are having a big office move come August so i won't have to tolerate it much longer. I wonder will I make it til then without further show downs?

2/10

I would take La Pauline over Toby 'Gag' Young any day. No one deserves to be subjected to him, except perhaps Julie Birchill.

She ramped up again this pm, but has now thankfully gone for the day. Her boss is off on his hols, topping up the perma tan The show-down will have to wait.

Tee hee hee. She is being mysteriously quieter today. I wonder has someone else 'ad a word.

Sorry to disappoint Lou, I think I trump him, as I am 'professional' staff (have letters after my name and everything), and he is mere 'support' staff - should I so choose I could crush them both like bugs. (BTW I HATE this terminology, was introduced to it by my ex boss who was civil service)

Yes, as I said Louisa, common with a chip on his northern shoulder.

Oh no Louisa he is clearly common and proud. He is from Liverpool (need I say more), indulges in fake tannery and wears too much after shave. I am not familiar with the different ways to achieve tipex white teeth, but no doubt his method is the most vulgar. I fear our chat will not go smoothly. Can't think why.

Oooh I think this is the first time I have started an even vaguely good thread. Firstly apologies Louisa for my wayward stereotyping. Can you PLEASE invest more time in sourcing decent jellied eels instead of carping on here about the downtrodden Southern masses - hows that? FYI I name checked Pauline Fowler as the lady in question sounds just like her, but substantially louder. I have been pondering if it is her accent or the volume that grates the most. I think both aspects contribute. However, I would prefer her cheese-grater of a gob to, say, TalkSports Quinnie (Liverpudlian and loud), or Boris Johnston (posh, smug and loud). I think you will find I am an equal opportunities moaner. I shall tackle her manager tomorrow, but he seems to spend more time on the sun-bed and having his teeth bleached than actually doing his job. Here's hoping I have found my diplomatic pants by tomorrow, or there could be fireworks.

Jesus Louisa, you do look for a class war in every thread. Does it not get a bit tiring? Maybe go and take the whippet out for a walk. I can't do the headphones thing as I tend to sing along to music which would visit even more disruption upon my already suffering colleagues. Ummm I could approach her manager again - thing is her team seem to be some how immune to the noise - or perhaps now just a bit deaf due to prolonged exposure and proximity. I must now resign myself to taking over as chief executive as only then will I get my own office.