[leohutson]

Well reflexively referring to the DEFINITION of a WORD is not an argument. When there are no dedicated cycleways, either pedestrians share with at least some cyclists or scooterists or you have children cycling on the road.

[yorwba]

When there are pedestrians, cyclists and cars sharing a space with only two different speed zones, cyclists driving on the sidewalk will have to limit themselves to walking speed, or cars driving on the same road as bicycles need to slow down to cyclist speed.

The same "children cycling on the road" argument (which is only dangerous if the cars on the road are going faster than the children) can be applied to children walking on the sidewalk where people cycle at full speed.

[leohutson]

1) An auto going 30kmh is a great deal more dangerous to a pedestrian or cyclist than a cycle doing the same.

2) Cars pose a risk to cyclists, even if cars are going the same speed, which is a fictional scenario, as many motorists don't go the same speed as cyclists and instead overtake them dangerously ASAP.

3) The risk posed by cycles to pedestrians is far less than the danger posed by autos to cycles.

[fiter]

Driveways/sidewalk crossings are not necessarily designed for cycling speed traffic. Motorists do not expect bicycles when crossing sidewalks.