CYCLISTS AND BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 228, 4 October 1901, Page 3

CYCLISTS AND BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

j (To the Editor of the Times ) j Sin,—Years ago bicycles were, from the i height of them, looked upon as a wonder, I and were positively fi.' htening when compared to the present i to-date machine, which allows any rider i ’ fair capacity to have as much control ov.. : s machine as the general nin of pedes,, ns have over themselves. By-laws wane then now require looking into, when t- bicycle is as much a general article of use as an umbrella or a piano. It is time that bylaws were altered to meet altered circumstances. I am a cyclist of over thirty years’ experience with the machines as they were called when I started riding. I enter my protest against making use of the footpaths or roads for racing in the same way as I would against foot racing, horse racing, or furious driving. But if the bicycle is used either on footpaths where there is room for it, or on roads at such rate as causes no inconvenience to other users of the roads or footpaths, I think from the general use of the bike the cyclist should have as much right to cither road or footpath as other users thereof.—l am, etc., Fair Play. (To the Editor of the Times.) Sir, —I am glad to sec that cyclists are having some talk at present. If the roads were good enough, there would be no necessity to use footpaths. If cyclists could keep to the roads, the footpaths would be more overgrown with grass than they are now. I would like to see every member of a Borough Council, lload Board or County Council a cyclist, and then I think wo might got decent roads for riding, walking, or taking our children out in perambulators.—l am, etc., Mamma. (To the Editor of the Times.) Sir, —In reading the correspondence in your paper re bicycle riding on footpaths, one phase of the affair does not seem to have struck your correspondents. I may consider myself an old resident, and have never yet mounted a bicycle. Ido a considerable amount of walking, especially in ;he back roads, and I have never yet had ;o get off the footpaths for bikes, but for Irunks, cows, and horses I have frequently lot only got oil the path, but retreated o the other side of the street. Query : You Id not the police be better employed n clearing the paths of these than in ooking after the riders on grass-grown satlis. —I am, etc., Non-Cyclist. |

To the Editor of the Times. Sir, —A few people whom the world has blest think because they have bikes they ought to run the whole show. Now, I think a poor pedestrian ought to have a chance, and if they are going to let the cyclists have the use of the footpaths there is nothing left for us but to go on the iniddio of the roads or hiro a carriage. I can’t afford the latter, and if it is too bad for the cyclist I am sure it must be bad for one walking. What I would suggest is that cyclists should be put in the same category as cattle, and allowed to ride on the footpaths between 8 o'clock in the morning and after 5 o’clock at night. Very few ladies and children are or ought to bo out after dark, and if the cyclist breaks his neck, it will be one more nuisance the less. This is a bit mixed, but it is just how I feel. —I am, ic., Anti-Cycle. CYCLISTS, JUSTICE AND LIBERTY. (To the Editor of thariPiMEs.) Sin,—“ Pedestrian ” seems to imagine that bikes should bo allowed the liberty of being run upon tho footpaths of towns, wheelbarrows thrown in. Sir, just take into consideration tho difference of momentum of a bike ridden at tho rate of about five miles an hour, a vdicelbarrow with a bag of potatoes driven at about three miles an hour, and a perambulator containing a baby driven at the usual snail pace. Come in contact with one of the three, and what is tho result ? The bike will knock you out of timo, the whoelborrow will cause you to use cuss words, but the perambulator, you simply turn round and say, 11 1 am very sorry, I beg your pardon.” Pedestrian says, ” I would suggest to the police catch a few of the scorchers.” That means moro than five miles an hour, and porhaps the police are not equal to it. “ Lady Cyclist” seems to imagine that if the bike is prevented or denied the right to use tho footpath that the town will go empty. Poor creature, the footpaths were undoubtedly set apart as tho part of tho public highway for pedestrians only so that wheeled traffic will not come in contact with them, but there are some people who have not much olse to do but tog up and ride about on a bike, and those people are the very ones who would arrogate to themselves their own, and the rights of others also. “A Wage Earner” tolls us that he “ has been riding his bike for years,” and he evidently has been on the footpath, as ho tolls us about the bit of blue. Ho too would usurp the liberty of the subject, and give up the road for the footpath. Why, sir, I have seen ladies riding on the footpath in Childers road two and three abreast, and I could name them. Is that, I would ask, the correct thing to do ? “ Traveller ” says : “No bike, no come to town, owing to the state of the roads.” My advice to “ Traveller ”is : “Do the same as you did prior to getting tho bike in muddy roads. Again, “Traveller.” says that bikes should have as much right to the road as anyone else. One of your correspondents quotes Mr DcLautour, but does not follow his example. Mr DcLautour knows it would not be right to bike on the footpath, so he leaves his machine at homo till the roads are favorable. Mr DcLautour does not usurp that liberty which it was not intended he should do. I have seen a man knocked down by a bike in Gladstone road, and I can give the name and locality. I have been told of a certain pedagogue in Gisborne who ran down on two occasions two children. Therefore, I hold that bikes are a danger to foot-passengers, and that prevention is better than cure. Therefore, keep the bikes and wheelbarrows off the footpaths. —I am, etc., Ped.