Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Lplus

No, see the offoicial highway code https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/uplo...27-07-2022.pdf

Try page 38 or thereabout.

Relevant sections (starting on page 36; emphasis added).

Quote:

63. Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn
vehicles. When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians,
horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when
passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older
adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them
know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is
recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out
politely.

Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially
sighted and that this may not be obvious.

Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles
closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. You should not
pass a horse on their left. Remember that horses can be startled
if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and
stop when necessary.

64. You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lionking

I find that amazing. It’s simple and it’s safer to have rules for dual pathways that apply except when passing.

Counterpoint: The more rules you have, the more criminals you create. At a certain point, the burden of keeping track of all the fiddly little rules becomes unsupportable to the average citizen. Criminalizing every little deviation from the norm, from "optimal" society, isn't the answer.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

I find that amazing. It’s simple and it’s safer to have rules for dual pathways that apply except when passing.

Highway code :

Quote:

Rules for pedestrians
1.General guidance
1. Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a
road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next
to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the
road, look both ways first.

That's guidance only, a convention if you will, that the person next to the kerb should be facing the oncoming traffic in the adjacent part fo the road, so in the UK pedestrians tend to pass right hand to right hand on a footway.

As to actual rules? Who the blazes is going to enforce a rule if anyone was daft enough to write one? It's bad enough trying to get the existing rules enforced.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Reasons for why a sidewalk is not appropriate for cyclists. Of course this is all a bit of a red herring. If the convicted intentionally pushed the cyclist it's manslaughter either way.

Sidewalks are generally not appropriate for cyclists because they are risky to the cyclists. Nobody pulling out of their driveway stops at the sidewalk, they stop at the curb. I will cycle on minor roads all the time, and on busier roads if there is a bike lane (fortunately my city has hundreds of miles of them). In this case it looks like a very busy road with tight lanes, cars going at high speeds and no bike lane. I would never ride in the roadbed in that situation, and I doubt any 76-year old lady would either.

I will also cycle on the sidewalk if there is no other good option, but with extra care, especially if I am approaching a pedestrian from either direction. From behind I will wait for a good passing opportunity and slow down to stay a good 20 feet behind them. If I am approaching them from the front, they usually have the common sense to move over, but I am quite willing to dismount and wait until we have passed to start riding. That's on the cyclist; given her age I doubt she was riding at any kind of speed so she had time to stop the bike and hop off. But that doesn't let the pedestrian off the hook.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

As to actual rules? Who the blazes is going to enforce a rule if anyone was daft enough to write one? It's bad enough trying to get the existing rules enforced.

Really? Rules only mean something if they are enforced? You must live in a strange part of the world. I mean, this is seriously funny.

Rules in places like shared pathways are for the guidance of citizens. For “rules” you might want think “guidelines for considerate behaviour”, and, where I live at least, they are usually followed.

I just don’t get this. Are you one of those “I’m a free person and I choose not to follow your rules” types?

Do rules like this really upset you? Because my observation is that on shared paths, roads and countless other places people follow rules because it is a civil thing to do. But I suppose some people get off acting uncivilly.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Sidewalks are generally not appropriate for cyclists because they are risky to the cyclists. Nobody pulling out of their driveway stops at the sidewalk, they stop at the curb. I will cycle on minor roads all the time, and on busier roads if there is a bike lane (fortunately my city has hundreds of miles of them). In this case it looks like a very busy road with tight lanes, cars going at high speeds and no bike lane. I would never ride in the roadbed in that situation, and I doubt any 76-year old lady would either.

I will also cycle on the sidewalk if there is no other good option, but with extra care, especially if I am approaching a pedestrian from either direction. From behind I will wait for a good passing opportunity and slow down to stay a good 20 feet behind them. If I am approaching them from the front, they usually have the common sense to move over, but I am quite willing to dismount and wait until we have passed to start riding. That's on the cyclist; given her age I doubt she was riding at any kind of speed so she had time to stop the bike and hop off. But that doesn't let the pedestrian off the hook.

Do you realise that this incident didn’t happen on a sidewalk?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Really? Rules only mean something if they are enforced? You must live in a strange part of the world. I mean, this is seriously funny.

Rules in places like shared pathways are for the guidance of citizens. For “rules” you might want think “guidelines for considerate behaviour”, and, where I live at least, they are usually followed.

I just don’t get this. Are you one of those “I’m a free person and I choose not to follow your rules” types?

Do rules like this really upset you? Because my observation is that on shared paths, roads and countless other places people follow rules because it is a civil thing to do. But I suppose some people get off acting uncivilly.

A "rule" followed by people because it's civil thing to do is a convention, and as I pointed out such a convention exists. When I talk of rules I mean those written in statute which must be obeyed on pain of some sort of penalty.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

A "rule" followed by people because it's civil thing to do is a convention, and as I pointed out such a convention exists. When I talk of rules I mean those written in statute which must be obeyed on pain of some sort of penalty.

What an ignorant post. Never heard of byelaws? They are made by councils, or even (gasp) private companies. They are not statutes but are indeed enforceable.

But guess what? They are not enforced because sensible people obey them. The pedestrian in question here is not sensible and is paying the cost.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

What an ignorant post. Never heard of byelaws? They are made by councils, or even (gasp) private companies. They are not statutes but are indeed enforceable.

But guess what? They are not enforced because sensible people obey them. The pedestrian in question here is not sensible and is paying the cost.

What an arrogant post. Of course I've heard of byelaws, did you really expect me to detail every means by which a rule can be enacted that is enforceable by a penalty? (But you used statute!!!11) Big deal.

Are you telling me that Australia has an enforceable rule that pedestrians must use one side of a footway? If not, why on earth are you quibbling?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you realise that this incident didn’t happen on a sidewalk?

Does "sidewalk" have a unique definition in Australia? It appears that what the UK calls "the pavement" is what's generally known elsewhere as the sidewalk. And this incident happened on "the pavement."

Quote:

A pedestrian who shouted and waved her arm aggressively at a cyclist on the pavement, causing her to fall into the path of an oncoming car, has been jailed for three years for manslaughter.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...car-huntingdon

Quote:

In the UK, ‘pavement’ refers to the strip of concrete beside roads, on which cars are not allowed to drive, and on which pedestrians walk.

In Canada, this is called ‘sidewalk’, after the eponymous side-nature of being on the side of roads, and the walking that one does upon them.

https://canadianbritishdictionary.wo...ment-sidewalk/

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Does "sidewalk" have a unique definition in Australia? It appears that what the UK calls "the pavement" is what's generally known elsewhere as the sidewalk. And this incident happened on "the pavement."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...car-huntingdon


https://canadianbritishdictionary.wo...ment-sidewalk/

Sigh. It’s a shared ******* path. If you don’t understand the difference this makes, you shouldn’t be participating in this thread.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

Sigh. It’s a shared ******* path. If you don’t understand the difference this makes, you shouldn’t be participating in this thread.

Now you're really reaching. A pavement/sidewalk can be designated as a shared-use path. They are not different things. And in this particular case, no evidence was presented that this "pavement" was a shared-use path.

Quote:

The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-64824436

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Now you're really reaching. A pavement/sidewalk can be designated as a shared-use path. They are not different things. And in this particular case, no evidence was presented that this "pavement" was a shared-use path.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-64824436

How do you know no evidence was presented? If the council couldn't categorically say one way or the other, there MUST be some evidence that it is a shared path.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Now you're really reaching. A pavement/sidewalk can be designated as a shared-use path. They are not different things. And in this particular case, no evidence was presented that this "pavement" was a shared-use path.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-64824436

I find that a little odd. Upthread a poster looked down the road in the direction the cyclist had come from and found a shared-use sign, with no negating sign along the way. I would have thought that once it's designated as shared-use it stays that way by default.

Here it is in 2018 -

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by GlennB

I find that a little odd. Upthread a poster looked down the road in the direction the cyclist had come from and found a shared-use sign, with no negating sign along the way. I would have thought that once it's designated as shared-use it stays that way by default.

Here it is in 2018 -

From this side of the pond, it sounds like no one really gives a **** where exactly bikes are supposed to be, and don't even bother with clearly identifying shared pavements. Maybe they expect that pedestrians won't be flaming douche canoes and cause deaths over sharing a pavement with an old lady on a bike?

Are cyclists going to become the UK version of US gun killings? For every guy who shoots someone for texting in a movie theatre in the States, are you guys going to shove a bike off the sidewalk and into traffic? For every mass shooting we have, are you going to like drive over a peleton?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by GlennB

I find that a little odd. Upthread a poster looked down the road in the direction the cyclist had come from and found a shared-use sign, with no negating sign along the way. I would have thought that once it's designated as shared-use it stays that way by default.

Here it is in 2018 -

How far? 100 yards? I mile? 10 miles? all the way round the block till you get back to the same point?

A shared footway/cycleway should be signed on or immediately adjacent to the facility. Note that shortly after the sign you show the signs appear only on the other side of the road and stay that way via various signs to well beyond the scene of the incident.

There should be plans showing the intended area of the shared route together with a sign schedule which between them indicate the location of the signs. It's no good handing the sign gang a bunch of signs and telling them to stick them up wherever they can find a space. That the county council doesn't know the exact location of the route astounds me. Maybe they lost the plans, or maybe it was the local authority acting for the county council who put up the signs.

[Matthew Best]

None of this matters. If it was or wasn't a shared path is irrelevant. Either way the pedestrian caused the cyclist to fall into the path of an oncoming car. If the cyclist was cycling on the pavement and it wasn't designed for cyclists at all, this was still an overreaction that caused someone's death.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Lplus

How far? 100 yards? I mile? 10 miles? all the way round the block till you get back to the same point?

A shared footway/cycleway should be signed on or immediately adjacent to the facility. Note that shortly after the sign you show the signs appear only on the other side of the road and stay that way via various signs to well beyond the scene of the incident.

About 500 yds. I can see the problem for the council though - there are many side roads joining the one in question, so to make things crystal clear you'd need separate signs to inform people who are joining this main road from every side street. Meanwhile, pedestrians will be seeing cyclists on the pavement on a regular basis, so you'd think they'd get the message pretty soon.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

None of this matters. If it was or wasn't a shared path is irrelevant. Either way the pedestrian caused the cyclist to fall into the path of an oncoming car. If the cyclist was cycling on the pavement and it wasn't designed for cyclists at all, this was still an overreaction that caused someone's death.

Agreed.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

None of this matters. If it was or wasn't a shared path is irrelevant. Either way the pedestrian caused the cyclist to fall into the path of an oncoming car. If the cyclist was cycling on the pavement and it wasn't designed for cyclists at all, this was still an overreaction that caused someone's death.

I think it does make a difference. Maybe not in terms of the ultimate conclusion (there I tend to agree with you) but in terms of degree or understanding (not excusing).

Take the cyclist aspect out of it (since a number of posters, including myself are probably biased in one way or another by their experiences as or with cyclists) if someone dies while in the act of 'committing a crime' / breaching rules it does tend to affect the reaction / judgement to it. Consider for example someone trespassing on a building site and then being chased away by a security guard and falling to their death... that could end up being death by misadventure depending on the exact circumstances. Not directly equating the two, just saying I think it is a consideration, albeit probably a minor one in this case.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by GlennB

About 500 yds. I can see the problem for the council though - there are many side roads joining the one in question, so to make things crystal clear you'd need separate signs to inform people who are joining this main road from every side street. Meanwhile, pedestrians will be seeing cyclists on the pavement on a regular basis, so you'd think they'd get the message pretty soon.

The route has to be positively signed because the signs indicate that the law preventing cycling on the footway is revoked for the signed section. There is no revocation of the law by default. and you're right about the need for more signs, the level of signing is abysmal.

Do we know that cyclists were regularly using the northern footpath? They were certainly using the southern side where the signs were, but is there evidence it was a regular occurrance on the northern side?

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

None of this matters. If it was or wasn't a shared path is irrelevant. Either way the pedestrian caused the cyclist to fall into the path of an oncoming car. If the cyclist was cycling on the pavement and it wasn't designed for cyclists at all, this was still an overreaction that caused someone's death.

On the basis that the judge mentioned it, it seems reasonable to assume it at least had some sort of effect on the sentencing, if not the judgement itself.

[Thermal]

Does a pedestrian ever have the right or privilege of forcing /pushing a cyclist into traffic though? I'm not seeing the pedestrian's POV where she could claim to be doing anything she did without reckless malice.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Does a pedestrian ever have the right or privilege of forcing /pushing a cyclist into traffic though? I'm not seeing the pedestrian's POV where she could claim to be doing anything she did without reckless malice.

Directly into traffic, no. That said you do have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was intended to actually force the cyclist directly into visible traffic, rather than remonstrate with them and have them fall into the traffic. Mind you, if that could be proven it would be closer to murder than manslaughter.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Directly into traffic, no. That said you do have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was intended to actually force the cyclist directly into visible traffic, rather than remonstrate with them and have them fall into the traffic. Mind you, if that could be proven it would be closer to murder than manslaughter.

Right, but what I'm getting at is it doesn't matter whether the cyclist was allowed to use the pavement or not. The pedestrians actions were dangerous and unjustified in any context. Unless the cyclist had one of those jousting things and was actively skewering pedestrians.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Right, but what I'm getting at is it doesn't matter whether the cyclist was allowed to use the pavement or not. The pedestrians actions were dangerous and unjustified in any context. Unless the cyclist had one of those jousting things and was actively skewering pedestrians.

In terms of "Pedestrian angry! Cyclist die! Guilty! you're quite right.

Some of us consider that there might be more to it than that, particularly at the sentencing level, if not the verdict level. Would you rather we all shut up and accepted the views of those who are certain of the correctness of both verdict and sentence? So much for a discussion forum.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you realise that this incident didn’t happen on a sidewalk?

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

[JoeMorgue]

Mods is this thread a shared path or not because apparently that's vitally ******* important in whether or not you get to kill people on it.

I don't give a tin **** if it on the track of the BMX Event at the X Games or during the Boston Marathon and if you think it actually makes more than the most peripheral of minor nuance level difference in this case you are just a horrible, horrible person.

Jesus Christ I wasn't aware I could camp out right where an "Official as Declared by Her Majesty the Queen GLORIOUS SHARED PATH!" ends and then just start shoulder checking bikers into oncoming traffic.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lplus

In terms of "Pedestrian angry! Cyclist die! Guilty! you're quite right.

Some of us consider that there might be more to it than that, particularly at the sentencing level, if not the verdict level. Would you rather we all shut up and accepted the views of those who are certain of the correctness of both verdict and sentence? So much for a discussion forum.

Not at all. I'd like to hear a different view, because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around anyone seeing anything that would mitigate the walker's actions.

Why would whether or not the cyclist was "allowed" to be there have any bearing? You are not allowed to threaten or intimidate or assault based on right of way one way or the other, so as I see it, it's irrelevant. Kind of like it wouldn't matter if someone is jaywalking, you still can't push them under an approaching car. It makes literally zero difference if the cyclist was in the right or wrong.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Mods is this thread a shared path or not because apparently that's vitally ******* important in whether or not you get to kill people on it.

I don't give a tin **** if it on the track of the BMX Event at the X Games or during the Boston Marathon and if you think it actually makes more than the most peripheral of minor nuance level difference in this case you are just a horrible, horrible person.

Jesus Christ I wasn't aware I could camp out right where an "Official as Declared by Her Majesty the Queen GLORIOUS SHARED PATH!" ends and then just start shoulder checking bikers into oncoming traffic.

Cool, you've decided it's all just fine - so why not go look at another thread and stop worrying about others discussiong the minutae of the case- or are you worried someone might bring up something that might make you reconsider your certainties?

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not at all. I'd like to hear a different view, because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around anyone seeing anything that would mitigate the walker's actions.

Why would whether or not the cyclist was "allowed" to be there have any bearing? You are not allowed to threaten or intimidate or assault based on right of way one way or the other, so as I see it, it's irrelevant. Kind of like it wouldn't matter if someone is jaywalking, you still can't push them under an approaching car. It makes literally zero difference if the cyclist was in the right or wrong.

I did point out that as the status of the path was mentioned by the judge, his assumption that it was shared may have had some bearing on his sentencing - I suppose if he stated during the trial that this was his interpretation it might have had some effect on the verdict. Also as has been pointed out above, the "pushing under a car" is an assumption several on here seem keen to make. As with joemorgue above, why do you care? you've made up your mind and have no doubts whatsoever, so what does it matter if others discuss it?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Cool, you've decided it's all just fine - so why not go look at another thread and stop worrying about others discussiong the minutae of the case- or are you worried someone might bring up something that might make you reconsider your certainties?



I did point out that as the status of the path was mentioned by the judge, his assumption that it was shared may have had some bearing on his sentencing - I suppose if he stated during the trial that this was his interpretation it might have had some effect on the verdict. Also as has been pointed out above, the "pushing under a car" is an assumption several on here seem keen to make. As with joemorgue above, why do you care? you've made up your mind and have no doubts whatsoever, so what does it matter if others discuss it?

Because none of us probably know of care who these two are. What we are ultimately talking about are the principles and values of those arguing here. Kind of a meta thing.

Like when we talk about guns, the two sides are loosely "I should be able to kill pretty much anyone who looks at me funny" v "howzabout we not cap a brother for looking at you funny?" Same here, but on a bike. I really am trying to get a handle on the starting assumptions that would excuse this pedestrian in any way, shape or form, or even have the sentence go easier on her.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Cool, you've decided it's all just fine - so why not go look at another thread and stop worrying about others discussiong the minutae of the case- or are you worried someone might bring up something that might make you reconsider your certainties?

What a dumb ass argument. I don't need the permission of a manslaughter apologist to be in a thread.

I'm here because people are making stupid arguments and I like pointing out flaws in stupid arguments.

[Shrinker]

Here's the specific guidance given by the judge to the jury in this case...

https://www.scribd.com/document/6301...ctions-of-Law#

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not at all. I'd like to hear a different view, because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around anyone seeing anything that would mitigate the walker's actions.

Why would whether or not the cyclist was "allowed" to be there have any bearing? You are not allowed to threaten or intimidate or assault based on right of way one way or the other, so as I see it, it's irrelevant. Kind of like it wouldn't matter if someone is jaywalking, you still can't push them under an approaching car. It makes literally zero difference if the cyclist was in the right or wrong.

So, if a car was on the pavement and a pedestrian frantically waved it on to the road whereupon it crashed into other traffic and died, that would be the pedestrian's fault? If this wasn't a shared pathway, of which there seems some doubt, then a bicycle is a road vehicle in this instance.

By the way, I tend to agree that the pedestrian is at fault here, I just find the nuance interesting and am not sure that it's as clear cut as others do...even if apparently that makes me a horrible person...

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

So, if a car was on the pavement and a pedestrian frantically waved it on to the road whereupon it crashed into other traffic and died, that would be the pedestrian's fault? If this wasn't a shared pathway, of which there seems some doubt, then a bicycle is a road vehicle in this instance.

Pretty sure a car can never ever share the pavement with pedestrians, because it is so wildly unsafe right out of the gate, unlike a cyclist, so the analogy doesn't hold well (although I get your point).

Quote:

By the way, I tend to agree that the pedestrian is at fault here, I just find the nuance interesting and am not sure that it's as clear cut as others do...even if apparently that makes me a horrible person...

I don't think anyone here is horrible. There are just different starting points that people reason from. Since they are so far out of alignment with mine, I'm interested in how it fleshes out.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What a dumb ass argument. I don't need the permission of a manslaughter apologist to be in a thread.

I'm here because people are making stupid arguments and I like pointing out flaws in stupid arguments.

All I see from you is insults and hand waving away discussion on the basis that "I've decided it's not relevant"

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Here's the specific guidance given by the judge to the jury in this case...

https://www.scribd.com/document/6301...ctions-of-Law#

Thanks - it appears to concentrate on whether "force" was used or not. From previous posts upthread there seemed to be some doubt about if actual force was used.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Thanks - it appears to concentrate on whether "force" was used or not. From previous posts upthread there seemed to be some doubt about if actual force was used.

I would say the opposite, that it takes the use of force as a given, possibly because the defence did not claim there was no force at all. I don't believe though that 'force' in this context necessarily requires physical contact. If it does then the court concluded there was a push, contrary to what many people here say.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

I think it does make a difference. Maybe not in terms of the ultimate conclusion (there I tend to agree with you) but in terms of degree or understanding (not excusing).

Take the cyclist aspect out of it (since a number of posters, including myself are probably biased in one way or another by their experiences as or with cyclists) if someone dies while in the act of 'committing a crime' / breaching rules it does tend to affect the reaction / judgement to it. Consider for example someone trespassing on a building site and then being chased away by a security guard and falling to their death... that could end up being death by misadventure depending on the exact circumstances. Not directly equating the two, just saying I think it is a consideration, albeit probably a minor one in this case.

There have been cases quoted in this thread where people committing crimes have been confronted/chased by others, subsequently died and the vigilante ended up being charged and convicted of manslaughter. You mightn’t think so, but it looks to me that you are excusing the pedestrian.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by lionking

There have been cases quoted in this thread where people committing crimes have been confronted/chased by others, subsequently died and the vigilante ended up being charged and convicted of manslaughter. You mightn’t think so, but it looks to me that you are excusing the pedestrian.

Nah, mitigating slightly in that I could see why she may have been angry / worried(?) but not excusing - and seeing some potential blame with the cyclist (but clearly not deserving of death, before anyone starts).

I'm also conscious of my bias - find cyclists round my way a complete pain (probably unfairly, except the cutting of red lights, that drives me nuts).

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Pretty sure a car can never ever share the pavement with pedestrians, because it is so wildly unsafe right out of the gate, unlike a cyclist, so the analogy doesn't hold well (although I get your point).



I don't think anyone here is horrible. There are just different starting points that people reason from. Since they are so far out of alignment with mine, I'm interested in how it fleshes out.

It's rare, but there are circumstances, pedestianised precincts with access for deliveries, pavements that allow parking (pavements that don't explicitly allow parking but are outside London).

I've had cars & vans pull onto the pavement to park closer to me than I would like. Near me there's an exclusive pedestrians & cyclists path, even horses aren't allowed, but two very expensive houses have been built which use it for access and they have a LOT of deliveries. I've literally never walked on it (30mins or so) and not encountered at least one vehicle.

We also have a problem around here with kids on motorcross motorbikes riding on pedestrian paths (some of which are also closed to cyclists, but they've literally stolen the signs that indicate this). BTW, I'm a car driver, biker, cyclist & walker, I'm just trying to be objective.