If only we could base all new legislation on anecdotal evidence, what a great country we'd live in.

To go back to some of the recent comments, I'm not sure anyone has claimed to be a 'proponent of pavement cycling' on this thread. The points made about motorists have been made to highlight things like why some of us oppose licensing of cyclists (i.e. it takes attention and effort away from the policing of a statistically-proven, far more dangerous mode of transport). Still nothing has been provided in the way of solid evidence that cycling on the pavement has become a significant problem that justifies new legislation and licensing. One could almost argue that the lack of evidence of a serious problem might suggest that more pavements could become 'shared pavements' (come on, use that one against me, I obviously secretly cycle on pavements and want protection from the law in slowly winding my way on my journeys, zig-zagging around pedestrians and pavement furniture).

I'm also an overprotective parent to a 3 year old and a 5 year old and much of my pavement time is spent walking with them. And I'm a miserable toe-rag who can find a whinge in most things. But am I tearing my fast-receding hair out because of a plague of pavement cyclists? No, because it doesn't exist, suggestions that pedestrians are being outnumbered on pavements by cyclists are absurd. When I've experienced it (infrequently) I either shout my feelings (if I've had no warning) or shield my kids and use myself as a barrier to the cyclist's progress, hopefully forcing them into the road. I've also kicked a red-light-jumper's back wheel away when he narrowly missed us on the crossing by sainsburys.

Other than that...what Applespider (well) said