nearly twatted a ped

[bonj2]

ssing into the canal.[/i]

can one legitimately do this?[/quote]
can't see any reason why not.

 

[Arch]

By shared-use I meant any path designated for the use of both pedestrians and bikes...

20 mph is too much on any path shared with pedestrians, unless you an't see any for a long way ahead. And even then, the chances of a dog suddenly appearing in your way must be high...

 

[bonj2]

walking pace only[/i] whenever there's a pedestrian in front. No buts. Pedestrians are not 'fair game' - everyone's been a ped. at some time in their life. 20mph with a pedestrian in your path is a no-no. You're welcome to open up at speed when you can see the path ahead of you to be clear.

Well I don't agree with that. If you're only going walking pace, i.e. the same speed as a ped, that effectively means don't ever overtake a ped.
Which is a load of cobblers.
There's nothing wrong with doing 20mph on a shared use path if it's safe to do so.

 

[Tony]

We all make misjudgements from time to time, give the lad a break.

Or in Bonj's case, from second to second....

 

[bonj2]

When I read his post I got the feeling that he really did feel a bit guilty about what he had done. No harm was actually done, just a near miss. I also didn't get the impression that he was riding particularly recklessly either, sounds more like a simple misjudgement, so yes if someone on here admitted to doing the same thing in a car then I guess I would have to give them a break yes.

I did feel a bit guilty, but only for finding it amusing, not for doing it in the first place.

In full view of a lone woman wakling towards him?? he still deserves to be pushed in.

He might not have know she was there.

You've made the assumption that cycling is permitted in the park in question.

In a lot of parks it isn't. You might want to check it out.

Course it is:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb214/TheBoss111/cyclingispermittedalongthisfootpath.jpg

Dom,
While I agree with giving someone a break for making a mistake, Bonj's subsequent posts suggest that he doesn't think he made a mistake and was quite justified in his behaviour.

Passing a pedestrian in a park at 20mph on a path not wide enough for the three of you isn't wise behaviour.

I do think I made a mistake. I made the mistake of assuming the other cyclist was going a similar speed to what I was, what I should have in fact done was to have gone round the left of the ped so the position of the other cyclist wouldn't have mattered.
Here you go, i've drawn you a diagram. The red represents the ped, the blue the other cyclist, the pink is me. The left diagram is what I was originally intending to happen. The middle diagram is what actually happened. The right diagram is what on hindsight I should have done (the green being a grassy bank and the light blue is a river).
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb214/TheBoss111/nearpedtwatting2.jpg

 

[bonj2]

When I read his post I got the feeling that he really did feel a bit guilty about what he had done. No harm was actually done, just a near miss. I also didn't get the impression that he was riding particularly recklessly either, sounds more like a simple misjudgement, so yes if someone on here admitted to doing the same thing in a car then I guess I would have to give them a break yes.

I did feel a bit guilty, but only for finding it amusing, not for doing it in the first place.

In full view of a lone woman wakling towards him?? he still deserves to be pushed in.

He might not have know she was there.

You've made the assumption that cycling is permitted in the park in question.

In a lot of parks it isn't. You might want to check it out.

Course it is:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb214/TheBoss111/cyclingispermittedalongthisfootpath.jpg

Dom,
While I agree with giving someone a break for making a mistake, Bonj's subsequent posts suggest that he doesn't think he made a mistake and was quite justified in his behaviour.

Passing a pedestrian in a park at 20mph on a path not wide enough for the three of you isn't wise behaviour.

How do you know how wide the path is??!

Although it has to be said I do think I made a mistake. I made the mistake of assuming the other cyclist was going a similar speed to what I was, when what I should have in fact done was to have gone round the left of the ped so the position of the other cyclist wouldn't have mattered.
Here you go, i've drawn you a diagram. The red represents the ped, the blue the other cyclist, the pink is me. The left diagram is what I was originally intending to happen. The middle diagram is what actually happened. The right diagram is what on hindsight I should have done (the green being a grassy bank and the light blue is a river).
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb214/TheBoss111/nearpedtwatting2.jpg
(it does look like the other cyclist is perilously close to the river but he in fact wasn't, he was about a couple of feet away)

 

[Pete]

Well I don't agree with that. If you're only going walking pace, i.e. the same speed as a ped, that effectively means don't ever overtake a ped.
Which is a load of cobblers.
There's nothing wrong with doing 20mph on a shared use path if it's safe to do so.

OK, can't speak for every case, it depends on the width of the path concerned, the visibility, etc. All I can say is, there's a stretch of path (bridle path actually: not divided; hedges both sides) which is an unavoidable part of my commute, there's no way I can pass a pedestrian on that path unless they step aside for me (which they often do, having heard my approach, and getting my 'thank you' in response...).

Of course it doesn't work every time. Like that young woman, the other day, who persisted in striding along in the middle of the path for its entire length, with me creeping along a respectful distance behind. And this was after my polite 'excuse me'. And she wasn't wearing any sort of music player (I noted this fact when I eventually got past)

Each to his or her own, I suppose. (*sigh*)

 

[domtyler]

Sorry, might not have responded as I did if I had known that this was in a park on a shared use path, I had assumed that it was a small road.

 

[Arch]

Of course it doesn't work every time. Like that young woman, the other day, who persisted in striding along in the middle of the path for its entire length, with me creeping along a respectful distance behind. And this was after my polite 'excuse me'. And she wasn't wearing any sort of music player (I noted this fact when I eventually got past)

Each to his or her own, I suppose. (*sigh*)

Remember that there are people who are deaf. And as they don't carry white sticks, or have assistance dogs (generally - although some do), you can't tell...

Not saying she was, and yes, there are some who are just oblivious and you wonder how they make it out of bed in the morning, but...

 

[abchandler]

Course it is:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb214/TheBoss111/cyclingispermittedalongthisfootpath.jpg

Hope you were ycling then

 

[Yorkshireman]

Well I don't agree with that. If you're only going walking pace, i.e. the same speed as a ped, that effectively means don't ever overtake a ped.
Which is a load of cobblers.
There's nothing wrong with doing 20mph on a shared use path if it's safe to do so.

Come on Bonj ... That's beginning to sound like one of SS songs. If you want to go at that sort of speed get on the road,we are allowed there - without 'predjudice' (in the strictly legal sense), thanks to some of us kicking up a bit of a fuss recently

 

[Pete]

Remember that there are people who are deaf. And as they don't carry white sticks, or have assistance dogs (generally - although some do), you can't tell...

Not saying she was, and yes, there are some who are just oblivious and you wonder how they make it out of bed in the morning, but...

True. [sherlock holmes hat]When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth[/sherlock holmes].

But I think, Arch, that in this case your second paragraph is a much more likely inference!

 

[Yorkshireman]

Of course it doesn't work every time. Like that young woman, the other day, who persisted in striding along in the middle of the path for its entire length, with me creeping along a respectful distance behind. And this was after my polite 'excuse me'. And she wasn't wearing any sort of music player (I noted this fact when I eventually got past) :?:

Each to his or her own, I suppose. (*sigh*)

Got quite a few paths like that around here (some divided, some not), 'converted' from footpaths, and as the roads have been 'traffic calmed' by introducing centre hatching and islands/refuges motorist seem not to like cyclists on the road (the roads are ridiculously narrow now). The worst offenders on these paths are the 'Walking Gargoyles' (otherwise known as 'Grumpy Old Ladies'), who enjoy pottering along in pairs, with those shopping bag/trolley things alongside them and so effectively blocking the path, A 'tinkle on the bell or polite "excuse me" has no effect other than a glance over the shoulder to give the 'Gorgon's Glare', followed by a jutting of the chin, hunching of the shoulders and doing the tortoise thing with the head, coupled with a change down into 'crawler gear' (go round on the grass verge and its Tut, Tut, Tut with much 'ruffling of feathers). They have priority ... And they know it . Sounds as though 'your' young woman is in training/practice for her old age (or she's read Cycle Craft and she's maintaining the primary to control the traffic . As you say "Each to his/her own" ... Such is life

 

[bonj2]

Remember that there are people who are deaf. And as they don't carry white sticks, or have assistance dogs (generally - although some do), you can't tell...

Not saying she was, and yes, there are some who are just oblivious and you wonder how they make it out of bed in the morning, but...

And there are some who are selectively deaf.