Pedestrians on shared/segregated cycle paths

[ferret fur]

Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous

Oh yes i can. I've never hit one but I'm told they can hurt.
Seriously, not only can they be a danger to themselves but they can cause incidents which lead to others being injured/killed.

 

[HLaB]

Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous.

Oh you've not experienced the numpties who deliberately jump out in front of your bike some of them can be pretty dangerous.

 

[dondare]

Oh yes i can. I've never hit one but I'm told they can hurt.
Seriously, not only can they be a danger to themselves but they can cause incidents which lead to others being injured/killed.

My contention is that pedestrians can only 'cause accidents' when the drivers of vehicles (a term that includes cyclists) are being incautious. Simply, the onus in on the driver to be extra careful when there are peds about.
Having said that, I have been knocked over (bike and all) by peds running into the road.

 

[BenM]

Oh you've not experienced the numpties who deliberately jump out in front of your bike some of them can be pretty dangerous.

Not saying I agree with it but the counter to that is that you were being dangerous because you couldn't safely stop in the distance you could see... it is always your fault if you collide with a pedestrian and therefore it is you, rather than they, that presents the danger.

In my instance (way back at the begining of the thread) I presented no danger to the pedestrians - I was travelling really slowly because there were pedestrians around and I expected them to do (to my mind) silly things which they duly did.

B.

 

[GrasB]

Can't really accuse peds of being dangerous.

I know someone who would disagree after suffering a broken arm & fractured ribs when a ped deliberately walked into her as she passed him at a rather sedate just faster than walking pace.

 

[dondare]

Well, deliberate assault is a different matter. Including that, peds can be dangerous.

 

[mangaman]

Nope. I don't accept that I have to take responsibilty for other peoples poor behaviour just because they happen to be on a bike.

Why should someone walking take responsibilty for someone riding into them - which is "poor behaviour" (any vehicle shouldn't be travelling at a speed that doesn't allow them to stop for someone walking.)

That is entirely the fault of the vehiculist (if there is such a word) on a bike or in a car etc.

You have the right to walk along any right of way, anywhere except a motorway. If you get hit by a bike - that is the fault of the cyclist.

It's why I always refuse to use shared use facilities.

 

[ferret fur]

Not saying I agree with it but the counter to that is that you were being dangerous because you couldn't safely stop in the distance you could see... it is always your fault if you collide with a pedestrian and therefore it is you, rather than they, that presents the danger.

I'm not sure that is even legally the case. If you google 'pedestrian liability' you will find that if a car driver is driving in a reasonable manner they will not be held to be totally to blame. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be a widespread misconception that if you hit a pedestrain while you are driving/riding it is by definition your fault. If I'm wrong here maybe someone who is a lawyer will correct me.
Many years ago i was a motorcycle courier: One wet winter's afternoon in the West End (of London) I was going at a reasonably slow speed down the street. I caught a glimpse of movement through the right angle of a shop's two windows and hit the brakes as a pedestrian sprinted out of a side alley & into the road. I stopped in time, but nearly got collected by the car behind me who locked up and skidded onto the other side of the road. The ped explained that it was pouring with rain which is why he ran into the road from a blind corner without looking or stopping.
'Fair enough' I thought. NOT

Pretty good piece of motorcycling though I say so myself. If I hadn't been a courier and therefore really switched on to danger I doubt whether I would have noticed the flash of movement. I don't think it was something that one would be 'expected' to see.
The point is if I'd been hit by the car behind me, I know who I would have blamed ... and it wasn't the car driver.

 

[ferret fur]

Why should someone walking take responsibilty for someone riding into them - which is "poor behaviour" (any vehicle shouldn't be travelling at a speed that doesn't allow them to stop for someone walking.)

That is entirely the fault of the vehiculist (if there is such a word) on a bike or in a car etc.

You have the right to walk along any right of way, anywhere except a motorway. If you get hit by a bike - that is the fault of the cyclist.

It's why I always refuse to use shared use facilities.

You misread what I wrote: I am talking about other cyclists beahviour reflecting badly on me.

 

[Origamist]

Yeah, I've done the bits on Ben's clip.

The segregated sections I was talking about are like this-

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...=1XxoIO_O1ZeUo1VyOh8BHA&cbp=12,296.84,,0,19.5

I thought so, but they're not classified as shared use, certainly not in the UK sense (i.e taking space away from pedestrians, usually the same surface, only a white line to divide the two sections, narrow, etc).

Amsterdam, due to its layout is more of a hodge-podge than many other Dutch cities and is not considered a cutting edge cycle city (that's Groningen).

 

[Origamist]

I didn't say that they were shared use. I said that I found more segregated in urban areas. More here in The Haag.

Sorry, I forgot you were referring to shared use meaning mopeds and cyclists using the same facilities. My mistake.

One of the advantages of sharing with speed limited mopeds in the Netherlands is that the paths are then designed for faster user speeds, unlike shared use paths (pedestrians and cyclists) in the UK.

 

[martint235]

I'm not a lawyer either but as I said earlier regarding cyclist v pedestrian, you may not be held totally liable, you may not be held liable at all but it is extremely unlikely that the ped will be held liable. Hence the best case is you get away with it. I don't think this is right or fair particularly the way some nutter peds behave but it just is.

 

[summerdays]

Not saying I agree with it but the counter to that is that you were being dangerous because you couldn't safely stop in the distance you could see... it is always your fault if you collide with a pedestrian and therefore it is you, rather than they, that presents the danger.

There are some instances when you can stop safely in the distance you can see forward but if a child appears out from behind a car at point blank range ... as I said earlier up this thread - a 2 or 3 year old popped out from between cars - her mum was still on the pavement. I managed to stop in time - but if I had been a metre closer when she appeared then I probably couldn't have managed to stop. I'm glad it was me rather than a car.

If we limit travel to the speed that you can stop for that child appearing at point blank range then we (bikes and cars) will have to be going at less than 10 mph all the time. Bring on the 20 mph zones though.

 

[dondare]

I'm not sure that is even legally the case. If you google 'pedestrian liability' you will find that if a car driver is driving in a reasonable manner they will not be held to be totally to blame. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be a widespread misconception that if you hit a pedestrain while you are driving/riding it is by definition your fault. If I'm wrong here maybe someone who is a lawyer will correct me.
Many years ago i was a motorcycle courier: One wet winter's afternoon in the West End (of London) I was going at a reasonably slow speed down the street. I caught a glimpse of movement through the right angle of a shop's two windows and hit the brakes as a pedestrian sprinted out of a side alley & into the road. I stopped in time, but nearly got collected by the car behind me who locked up and skidded onto the other side of the road. The ped explained that it was pouring with rain which is why he ran into the road from a blind corner without looking or stopping.
'Fair enough' I thought. NOT

Pretty good piece of motorcycling though I say so myself. If I hadn't been a courier and therefore really switched on to danger I doubt whether I would have noticed the flash of movement. I don't think it was something that one would be 'expected' to see.
The point is if I'd been hit by the car behind me, I know who I would have blamed ... and it wasn't the car driver.

When controling a dangerous piece of machinery in an unrestricted public place it is the duty of the operator to ensure the safety of others, even when the others are fools. You were as aware as you needed to be but the driver behind wasn't. All too often drivers are not sufficiently aware either of their surroundings or of their responsibilities.
It isn't enough to say "I won't kill anyone so long as they are alert, quick and clever and don't do something that I'm not expecting"; because so many of the public-at-large are slow, dozy, stupid and unpredictable.
The roads are how such people get about, not a means by which they are culled.

 

[dondare]

There are some instances when you can stop safely in the distance you can see forward but if a child appears out from behind a car at point blank range ... as I said earlier up this thread - a 2 or 3 year old popped out from between cars - her mum was still on the pavement. I managed to stop in time - but if I had been a metre closer when she appeared then I probably couldn't have managed to stop. I'm glad it was me rather than a car.

If we limit travel to the speed that you can stop for that child appearing at point blank range then we (bikes and cars) will have to be going at less than 10 mph all the time. Bring on the 20 mph zones though.

As cyclists we know how to pass parked vehicles safely. Motorists could do the same if they were bothered to.
Once again, I'll cite the Patron Saint of Petrol-Heads on how to drive without killing small children, and it does mean being prepared to drive very slowly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article1461588.ece