Pedestrians

[Angelfishsolo]

Or "when you're on a path crowded with pedestrians, stop cycling"

Maybe it's the "might is right" mentality!

 

[JonnyBlade]

Spent a while checking and you were right, the last point I made was as you suspected ......... bollocks!!! Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways

I stand by everything else though that I have said on this 'closed' arguement

 

[locker]

No, because you should be giving them enough room to be able to do that. If, by the pedestrian suddenly changing direction, there is a collision, you were passing too close to them.

Now, if a pedestrian hid behind a bush and leapt into your path, that would be different. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.

[media]
]View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M[/media]



this was one I made in Oct.2010 when a ped (young girl) leap out in front of me but not from behind a bush, stopped in time but not upright, before you say anything this is a shared pathway

[media]
]View: http://youtu.be/iiHbOlAV7vg[/media]



Or maybe this one above when I was brutally attacked by a ped

 

[rowan 46]

View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M

first well done for not hitting her, I also have to say that your idea of a slow safe speed around pedestrians is a lot faster than mine. I am typically going around walking speed if pedestrians are around. If I am in a hurry I use the roads. I hope you were not hurt by the way? when coming up to blind corners and things I tend to move away from them adopting a primary like position, thus giving them and you (me ) a chance to see and be seen.

 

[rowan 46]

Just seen your second vid brutally attacked, that was better riding didn't see much wrong there

 

[locker]

View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M

first well done for not hitting her, I also have to say that your idea of a slow safe speed around pedestrians is a lot faster than mine. I am typically going around walking speed if pedestrians are around. If I am in a hurry I use the roads. I hope you were not hurt by the way? when coming up to blind corners and things I tend to move away from them adopting a primary like position, thus giving them and you (me ) a chance to see and be seen.

The floor was wet from the fountain & I didn`t notice it but I pass that way twice a week & slower with eyes open

 

[locker]

Just seen your second vid brutally attacked, that was better riding didn't see much wrong there

But she could have jumped on me

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I don't agree with calling pedestrians zombies I find it's disrespectful. By the way you didn't hit big mama you hit a lady you disrespectfully called big mama. And the fact you still use this derogatory term for her doesn't show much contrition from you. I'll try and address your other points. There is a difference in law between workers working on a path and ordinary pedestrians as you pointed out a worker is covered by the the health and safety at work and their primary duty is to be responsible for their own safety. A pedestrian isn't covered by this law because they are not at work. It would be wise to look out for cycles but they are not obliged to. You as a cyclist however are obliged to look out for pedestrians its a requirement to ride safely. speeding down a cyclepath expecting others to do your risk assessment for you isn't being safe it is reasonable to assume a pedestrian will use a shared path and you should ride accordingly. the fact is if you hit a pedestrian the law will blame you unless you can prove the pedestrian deliberately hurled themselves into your bike.

Even though on my daily ride through the parks that I ride through I see a number pedestrians that qualify as a "zombie" i.e. they've got their eyes glued to their cell/mobile phone, or their iPod to call them a zombie is as disrespectful to all such a distracted pedestrian a zombie as it is to call motorists cagers.

Just as much as a cyclist or skateboarder or roller skater/blader has an obligation not to endanger anyone anyone else on the path whether obligated under law or not that is also true of pedestrians. A pedestrian cannot just sit down and expect that everyone behind them is going to avoid them, nor can they suddenly stop and turn around and start running in the opposite direction and blame the cyclist when/if they collide. As if the pedestrian was behaving in a predictable manner then that collision could be avoided.

<Quote>
expecting others to do your risk assessment for you isn't being safe
</Quote>

That also goes for pedestrians, to expect other path users to do their risk assessment isn't safe.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

What a dickish post.

You still don't understand; pedestrians can wander around as unpredictably as they want on paths. Paths are for pedestrians. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there. Cyclists bring the risk, so cyclists have to behave in such a way as to minimise that risk - by cycling slowly and giving pedestrians enough room.

Pedestrians should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate pedestrians.

Ben,

You know what change pedestrian to cyclist and cyclist to motorist in your post and that is the EXACT same argument that motorists use for why cyclists don't belong on the road, because the roads are for cars, not bicycles. As well as changing paths to roads.

<Quote>
<Snip>
Roads are for cars. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there.

<Snip>
Motorists should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate motorists.
</Quote>

 

[gaz]

Ben,

You know what change pedestrian to cyclist and cyclist to motorist in your post and that is the EXACT same argument that motorists use for why cyclists don't belong on the road, because the roads are for cars, not bicycles. As well as changing paths to roads.

<Quote>
<Snip>
Roads are for cars. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there.

<Snip>
Motorists should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate motorists.
</Quote>

A shame you overlooked the fact that the pavements are for pavements and the roads are for vehicles. So whilst motorists may argue that point, they would be wrong.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

But this doesn't allow for the fact that many shared-use paths across parks have been put there (or legally reassigned) for cyclists to use in order to avoid a road, so are seen as primarily transit routes not places for them to potter. And they have as much right in law to be there as pedestrians. Aren't we in danger of lumping all paths in a public park in the same category? There are parks with free use of bikes on any path, others with specific paths only (eg Kensington Gardens) and others where strictly speaking they're banned altogether. And shouldn't one distinguish between paths designated as part of a local or national route, say by the local council, Sustrans or whatever, and a more general path network that anyone can use? And is it really a surprise to find some cyclists (and pedestrians) would like to see better lane discipline where such demarkation is provided? Ie one's behaviour as a cyclist should be able to depend on whether a path has marked lanes or not. I've seen it work in other European countries, where I should imagine that children are taught from a young age to keep to their side of the white line and where cycle paths tend to be de facto roads for cyclists to the benefit of all users. Here, shared use seems to equate to shared antagonism (and I write as a cyclist who hates being held up by oblivious pedestrians on something that's supposed to be a cycle path as much as a pedestrian who hates being hassled by cyclists on a path on which they are not allowed).

Agreed, here (at least in St. Petersburg, Fl) there are a number of parks that the sidewalks/bike/multi use/shared paths are part of the overall sidewalk/multi use/shared path system and cyclists are using them as part of their route to commute to and from work. And there are parks as I said where bikes are prohibited from being used. And there are multi use/shared paths that not only have pavement markings clearly dividing the path into bicycle and pedestrian sides but there are also signs that reinforce that division.

And just as walkers understandably get upset when cyclists ride on their side of the path cyclists are also just as understandably upset when walkers are on the bicycle side of the path.

And correct me if I am mistaken, but share as in shared path means that everyone shares the path and no one group has priority over another group. If pedestrians have absolute right to the path and everyone else has to get out of their way, than guess what it isn't a "shared" path, it's a pedestrian path.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Actually, here in Florida when a cyclist operates their bike on a sidewalk they do it is the law:

F.S. 316.2065

[size="-1"](10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.[/size]

 

[locker]

Ben,

You know what change pedestrian to cyclist and cyclist to motorist in your post and that is the EXACT same argument that motorists use for why cyclists don't belong on the road, because the roads are for cars, not bicycles. As well as changing paths to roads.

<Quote>
<Snip>
Roads are for cars. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there.

<Snip>
Motorists should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate motorists.
</Quote>

Not a very good argument to get your point over you may losing the battle on this one & you are not going to convince him otherwise as he has blickers on & nayyyything going to change his mind

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Cyclists are NOT the only only one's who are bringing the risk. Pedestrians who have their head up their 4th point of contact i.e. have their iPod plugged into their ears and at a volume that they wouldn't hear a claymore detonated behind are also bringing risk. Or pedestrians who have their eyes glued to their cell/mobile phones are the ones who are bringing the risk NOT the cyclist.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Here in Vancouver, there is a war against cyclist. Ped and Cars vs Cyclist. As a new cyclist I was a bit put-off by the fact that I must ride in the street or face a fine. I'm scared of those cars! I'm slowly starting to get used to it but in a big city I know it's inevitable that I will be hit by a car. I've already had a few close calls. Also as a pedestrian in this city, it's annoying to have people on bikes try to mow you down. While in a car, many cyclist refuse to obey traffic rules. It has been a real pain in that regards but we must find some way to coexist peacefully.

Agreed, it irks me to no end when I'm out riding and I am sitting there at a red light and some other cyclist comes hammering by and doesn't even slow down for the red light. Or when they're riding against the flow of traffic i.e. a salmon cyclist, or when they're riding without any lights, i.e. a ninja.

The other night I encountered two people riding double on a single bicycle. They were also riding ninja and salmon. IF they were to get hit by a car I would blame them more than I would the driver. Yes, the driver would still share in the fault, but the lions share would be on the shoulder of the cyclist for carrying a passenger, riding at night without lights, and against the flow of traffic.