Pedestrians

[dellzeqq]

What a stupid quote, everyone is responsible for their own safety, if some dick wants to go & pick flowers on a shared path & not bother to look out for anyone else whether other pedestrian or cyclist then they are being a danger to themselves & others
as I have said before pedestrians are not a different species they are human (I think)
BTW I`ve all ready said I was going too fast when I hit Big Mama but lets not dwell on it as my youtude channel will probably crash with the amount of hits it`s getting

Oh another point, if a council worker is walking & picking up rubbish is he counted as a pedestrian & according to you he can zig zig without a care in the world if he wants or is he liable for his own actions under the Heath & Safety at Work Act?
And as for "Pedestrians are under no obligation to check blind spots, indicate or anything else befroe they move around a path, which is how it should be" no it shouldn`t be, they made film about this called "Zombies from Hell" so when replying in future instead of typing "Pedestrian" replace it with "Zombie"

eh? I take it that this is a wind-up........

 

[tongskie01]

eh? I take it that this is a wind-up........

+1

 

[benb]

make up your mind, one minute you`re taking about parks, paths where cyclists & zombies, sorry pedestrians, share, then now you`re talking about pedestrians only paths & there not many flowers to be picked on these around here in Bristol All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians, to be on a cycle path,lane,track if it`s shared . talk about dickish posting.

Wrong. Cyclists have less right to be on a shared use path than pedestrians. Pedestrians have priority, and it's your responsibility as a cyclist to avoid them, not their responsibility to avoid you. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

No idea what your idiotic comment about picking flowers has to do with anything. I was saying that all of the points about shared use paths in parks also apply to shared use paths in other places.

 

[mcr]

Just because the council has slapped a white line on it, doesn't stop it being a pavement. It's still a pavement, and pedestrians still have priority, and the right to suddenly stop and change direction without having to check for cyclists.

I'm tired of repeating myself, but: The cyclist brings the risk, so it's the cyclist's responsibility to cycle appropriately to minimise that risk.

Yes, but that's what's wrong with the practice. Either paint a white line down the middle and give it some legal (or at least educative) thwack, or don't bother with the white line and we, as cyclists, know to act accordingly. Why do councils etc waste so much white paint? Your original video showed such a path, hence I thought that this was germane to the argument.

 

[mcr]

Behold! The reason everyone hates us. "All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians [on a shared path]". They don't, legally or morally. If you ride as if you do, you'll soon find yourself riding into people. Which is, no matter which way you cut it, your fault. Shared use paths are not roads (which is part of the reason I don't use them: for all their faults, roads at least have a reasonably rigid rule structure which most people obey most of the time): you need to ride expecting pedestrians to wander around unpredictably, for this is what pedestrians do.

Your selective quote missed the bit where locker said 'to be on a cycle path', etc. In other words, he's surely talking about the legal right of 'being' (if we're not getting too existential) on such a piece of tarmac, not talking about rights of 'behaviour' on said paths (at least, that's how I read it).

 

[locker]

Your selective quote missed the bit where locker said 'to be on a cycle path', etc. In other words, he's surely talking about the legal right of 'being' (if we're not getting too existential) on such a piece of tarmac, not talking about rights of 'behaviour' on said paths (at least, that's how I read it).

thank you

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Your selective quote missed the bit where locker said 'to be on a cycle path', etc. In other words, he's surely talking about the legal right of 'being' (if we're not getting too existential) on such a piece of tarmac, not talking about rights of 'behaviour' on said paths (at least, that's how I read it).

What he said was:

All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians, to be on a cycle path,lane,track if it`s shared .

Disregarding for a moment the remedial class punctuation, the bit I've put in bold is the bit I had an issue with, which is why I addressed it in the post you've quoted. I read it differently from you, given that it wasn't too long before the post in question that we were talking about behaviour on paths.

 

[locker]

Wrong. Cyclists have less right to be on a shared use path than pedestrians. Pedestrians have priority, and it's your responsibility as a cyclist to avoid them, not their responsibility to avoid you. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

No idea what your idiotic comment about picking flowers has to do with anything. I was saying that all of the points about shared use paths in parks also apply to shared use paths in other places.

Rhythm Thief mentioned the picking of flowers I just thought you were reading all the posts. cyclists have equal rights as pedestrians to be on a shared use path & yes peds do have priority

so where do you get that cyclists have less rights to be on a shared use path? I can`t find it anywhere
as some of you have pointed out I need to learn & improve my riding but I can`t just take anyones word for it (and I can`t find anywhere about a Zombie picking flowers either)

 

[Rhythm Thief]

We don't have fewer rights to be on a shared use path. But what we do have is a greater responsibility once we're there, as the vehicles that bring the danger to the environment. Pedestrians have the right to wander around as they please (like it or not ) and we as cyclists have to accommodate that. If that means slowing down until we wobble just to pass a pedestrian who may not have seen us, tough.

 

[benb]

Rhythm Thief mentioned the picking of flowers I just thought you were reading all the posts. cyclists have equal rights as pedestrians to be on a shared use path & yes peds do have priority

so where do you get that cyclists have less rights to be on a shared use path? I can`t find it anywhere
as some of you have pointed out I need to learn & improve my riding but I can`t just take anyones word for it (and I can`t find anywhere about a Zombie picking flowers either)

You can start by stopping referring to pedestrians as zombies. It's rather offensive.
When I said less rights, I obviously meant lower priority. Stop splitting hairs.

So, cyclists have a right to be on a shared path, but only as long as they ride it safely and appropriately. Is that better?

 

[locker]

What he said was:



Disregarding for a moment the remedial class punctuation, the bit I've put in bold is the bit I had an issue with, which is why I addressed it in the post you've quoted. I read it differently from you, given that it wasn't too long before the post in question that we were talking about behaviour on paths.

Bully, I`m off back to my remedial class, but just before I go, if you`re having such a problem with understanding then you better come back to the remedial with me

 

[locker]

You can start by stopping referring to pedestrians as zombies. It's rather offensive.
When I said less rights, I obviously meant lower priority. Stop splitting hairs.

So, cyclists have a right to be on a shared path, but only as long as they ride it safely and appropriately. Is that better?

Yes thats better, no more Zombies

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Oh Rhythm Thief - Stop picking on poor locker. He can't run you over so he is upset and scared.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

he might have a point. If he's willing to learn I'm happy to apologise for being a bit heavy handed. It just didn't look that way earlier in the thread ...

 

[benb]

he might have a point. If he's willing to learn I'm happy to apologise for being a bit heavy handed. It just didn't look that way earlier in the thread ...

I'm not holding my breath.