"Have to" and "need to" are slightly different but native speakers often use them to express the Japanese phrase 「〜しなければなりません」
e.g.
I need to do my homework.
You need to stay out of this area.
Similarly, something that is "on the road" or "in the street" means 「原則車道を走る」(more literally: 「原則車道で〜」There are slight differences, but in this example both are acceptable.
e.g.
It's dangerous to stand in the street without watching for cars.
I got in accident on the road.
"Have to"と"need to"はわずかに違いますが、ネイティブスピーカーはよく日本語の「〜しなければなりません」というフレーズを表して使います。
【例文】
I need to do my homework.（宿題をしなければなりません）
You need to stay out of this area.（この場所から離れなければなりません）
同様に、何かが"on the road"あるいは"in the street"というのは、「原則車道を走る」(文字通りには: 「原則車道で〜」わずかな違いがありますが、この例ではどちらも使えます。
【例文】
It's dangerous to stand in the street without watching for cars.（車を見ないで道路に立っていたら危ないよ）
I got in accident on the road.（道路で事故に遭いました）
Bicycles must ride on the road even if there is no bicycle lane.
Bicycles cannot ride/use the pavement/sidewalk.
"Bicycles must ride on the road even if there is no bicycle lane." This explains to the person that anyone riding a bicycle must ride on the road even if there is no bicycle lane.
"Bicycles cannot ride/use the pavement/sidewalk."
Ride and Use have the same meaning.
Pavement and Sidewalk mean the same thing.
This explains to the person that if you are on a bicycle you must ride on the road you cannot ride anywhere else.
"Bicycles must ride on the road even if there is no bicycle lane."
（自転車道がないところでも、自転車は原則車道を走らなければなりません。）
このフレーズは自転車に乗っている人に自転車道がないところでも、自転車は車道を走らなければならないと伝えています。
"Bicycles cannot ride/use the pavement/sidewalk."
（自転車が歩道を走ることはできません。）
Ride (乗る）と Use（使う）は同じ意味です。
Pavement と Sidewalk は同じく歩道または側道という意味です.
このフレーズは自転車に乗っている場合は他のどの部分でもなく車道のみを走らなければいけないと伝えています。
Even if there is no lane for bicycles you are allowed to ride the bicycle in the road.
Bicycles should be ridden in the road/street.
*Even if there is no lane for bicycles you are allowed to ride the bicycle in the road.- This means that if there are no lanes for bicycles you should ride the bicycle in the road.
*Bicycles should be ridden in the road/street.- Ridden is the past participle of ride. This means that this is a rule all cyclists must follow.
*Even if there is no lane for bicycles you are allowed to ride the bicycle in the road.という例文について
これは、自転車専用レーンがなく、自動車と同じ道を自転車で走らなくてはいけないということを意味します。
*Bicycles should be ridden in the road/street.
（自転車は、自動車と同じ道を自転車で走らなくてはいけない）という例文について
Riddenとは、rideの過去分詞形です。これは、サイクリストが必ず従わなくてはならないルールのことを意味します。
"If there's no bicycle lane, bicyclists have to share the roadway with cars."
"People riding a bicycle must use the regular roadway here."
"If there's no bicycle lane, bicyclists have to share the roadway with cars."
This is a slightly formal way to express that people using bicycles must use the road. It also expresses that there will also be cars on the road, and that drivers and bicyclists must share the area.
Example:
Friend: "What are the traffic laws here?
You: "If there's no bicycle lane, bicyclists have to share the roadway with cars."
"People riding a bicycle must use the regular roadway here."
This is a less formal way to express that bicycles must use the road. It also expresses that there will also be cars on the road, and that drivers and bicyclists must share the area.
Example:
Friend: "Where do you ride your bicycles here?"
You: "People riding a bicycle must use the regular roadway here."
"If there's no bicycle lane, bicyclists have to share the roadway with cars."
という例文について
この文は、自転車に乗る人は（車）道を使わなければいけないという意味の少しフォーマルな表現の仕方です。ここでは、道には車も走っており、車と自転車が道を共有しなければならないということも意味します。
例文
Friend: "What are the traffic laws here?
「ここでの交通法規は何ですか？」
You: "If there's no bicycle lane, bicyclists have to share the roadway with cars."
「もし自転車専用道路がなければ、自転車は車と車道をシェアしなければいけません。」
"People riding a bicycle must use the regular roadway here."
という例文について
この文は、上記と同じ意味ですが、上記よりもくだけた表現になります。ここでも、道には車も走っており、車と自転車が道を共有しなければならないということも意味します。
例文
Friend: "Where do you ride your bicycles here?"
「ここでは、自転車はどこを走るの？」
You: "People riding a bicycle must use the regular roadway here."
「ここでは自転車は車道を走らないといけません。」
In many countries they have dedicated bicycle paths for riding a bicycle, but in the case there is no bicycle path they must ride on the road, not on a footpath. Safety reasons prohibit people from riding a bicycle on a footpath, therefore they must share the road with other vehicles.
When there is no cycle lane...we must share the road with other traffic!
Being a cyclist can be " a dangerous pursuit" especially when there is NO cycle
lane to ride in...And in the event there is none...our journey can be more challenging!
Since we would then have to..."share the road with other traffic"
自転車にのるのは時に危険な娯楽になり得ます。自転車専用レーンがない場合はなおさらのことです。それがない場合は、自転車の旅はより難しくなるでしょう。
そんなときは他の車と一緒に車道を走る"share the road with other traffic"必要がありますから。
Explanation: You can use the modals 'should' or 'must' to explain the obligation people have to obey rules. However, on a safety note, advising a child or unconfident cyclist to 'stay on the road' would be extremely bad advice. In the UK such laws are often ignored if cycling on a dangerous road is the option.
Example sentence:
"You should cycle on the road but because 5 cyclists have been killed here in the last 10 years, I would strongly advise you to stay on the pavement!"
解説：人々が従わなければいけない義務について話す際は、'should' または 'must' という言葉を使います。しかし、安全の面から言うと、子供やおぼつかない自転車運転手に車道にいるように'stay on the road' アドバイスすることはかなり無茶です。イギリスでは危険な道路で自転車に乗る場合は、このような法律は無視されることがあります。
例文：
"You should cycle on the road but because 5 cyclists have been killed here in the last 10 years, I would strongly advise you to stay on the pavement!"
（自転車は車道を走らなければいけませんが、過去10年で5人が自転車事故で亡くなったことを考えると、歩道に留まるように強くお勧めします。）
In two of the examples we can use the verb, "to use," in a way to say that someone has to do something and interact with something like a road while the auxiliary verbs, "to must," and, "to have to," to express that something is obligatory. We can also use the verbal phrase, "to share with," to express that they must use the same road that a car normally would.
アメリカ合衆国 
南アフリカ 
オーストラリア 
イギリス 
カナダ 
