Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484672"]
There's plenty of room.
[/quote]

Were you there at the time and knew exactly how much space he had? You do know that space has a tendency to get distorted in videos/pictures right? And what seems to one to be "plenty" of room in reality could be a narrow "horse path."

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

By the same token you have no idea about British life and do not know what you are talking about.

This is true, and I never claimed to. I am speaking from a common sense perspective. And common sense says that everyone is responsible for their own safety and shouldn't rely on others to protect them.

 

[Thomk]

I could only bear to read 17 pages of this so may be repeating...sorry.
I have some sympathy for both/all views here. I think shared cycle/ped paths in a park are a bad idea and, in our imperfect world, bound to be somewhat unsafe. The onus must of course always be on the cyclist to avoid collisions and in a perfect world children should be allowed to stagger around with free abandon. However, I would be loathe to allow my two kids (under 5) to wander around freely on one of these paths because of the risks to them caused by unsafe and erratic cyclists (unfortunately they do exist). If they hit one of my kids they would be completely responsible according to law but that is of little relevance to me or the child. The solution is a vast increase in the skill/attitude level of poor cyclists (unlikely) or a rethink of the shared cycle/ped situation.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Well your comments thus far paint a very different picture I assure you.

That was one incident out of I don't know how many years and miles of riding. And as I said if I had it to do over with the knowledge that I'd gained still intact I would have taken a different route. Past experience had taught me that it is/was safe to continue through even though the street was closed to motor vehicle traffic.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

This is true, and I never claimed to. I am speaking from a common sense perspective. And common sense says that everyone is responsible for their own safety and shouldn't rely on others to protect them.

No, you are speaking from a position of what is best for you. Common sense should tell you to obey the law. In this country, unless otherwise stated, pedestrians always have priority.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Think of it this way. The larger and more powerful a vehicle the greater the care the driver/rider needs to take

Agreed, I guess over there you don't have people committing suicide by throwing themselves into the path of moving vehicles.

Granted it isn't an everyday (at least as far as I know) occurrence here, but it does happen. Likewise we have people who commit what is known as "blue suicide." Meaning that they intentionally go out and do something that causes the police to shot and kill them.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Agreed, I guess over there you don't have people committing suicide by throwing themselves into the path of moving vehicles.

Granted it isn't an everyday (at least as far as I know) occurrence here, but it does happen. Likewise we have people who commit what is known as "blue suicide." Meaning that they intentionally go out and do something that causes the police to shot and kill them.

Assumptions aqe the mother of all fukups .

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

No, you are speaking from a position of what is best for you. Common sense should tell you to obey the law. In this country, unless otherwise stated, pedestrians always have priority.

Fortunately over here they don't have "priority," yes they have the right of way, but that also is not absolute. Over here if a pedestrian is walking down a road that doesn't have a sidewalk/pavement they have to yield the right of way to motor vehicles.

And I do obey the law, as at times it seems that I am the only one on a bicycle who stops for stop lights/signs, and yields to pedestrians. As well as more often than not it seems like I am the only one who uses lights (I actually have more lights on my bike/person than the law requires) or wears a reflective vest.

Even with all of my lights and vest I still had a woman pull up along side of me and tell me that I was "hard to see." I had to laugh as I had two taillights in blink mode, and a large orange safety vest.

So please do not try to tell me that I do not obey the law.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Fortunately over here they don't have "priority," yes they have the right of way, but that also is not absolute. Over here if a pedestrian is walking down a road that doesn't have a sidewalk/pavement they have to yield the right of way to motor vehicles.

And I do obey the law, as at times it seems that I am the only one on a bicycle who stops for stop lights/signs, and yields to pedestrians. As well as more often than not it seems like I am the only one who uses lights (I actually have more lights on my bike/person than the law requires) or wears a reflective vest.

Even with all of my lights and vest I still had a woman pull up along side of me and tell me that I was "hard to see." I had to laugh as I had two taillights in blink mode, and a large orange safety vest.

So please do not try to tell me that I do not obey the law.

I will when you stop commenting on UK topics from an American PoV.

 

[Tommi]

Again, it comes down, IMHO, to the points that I made in the earlier post. The person bringing the greater risk to the space should be prepared to take the bulk of the responsibility.

Right. Now given a situation involving an adult pedestrian behaving unpredictably and a small child learning to ride a bike, or a grandmother with not the best of reflexes riding leisurely, would you agree the person bringing the greater risk is the pedestrian? Just trying to establish that pedestrians also have responsibilities and a collision by itself does not prove the cyclist was at fault.

And as you said, lacking presumed liability (unless something similar is actually implied by shared paths) pedestrians would actually need to prove that the cyclist in fact was negligent. If car-bicycle incidents are any indication, good luck with that.

 

[Tommi]

I could only bear to read 17 pages of this so may be repeating...sorry.
I have some sympathy for both/all views here. I think shared cycle/ped paths in a park are a bad idea and, in our imperfect world, bound to be somewhat unsafe. The onus must of course always be on the cyclist to avoid collisions and in a perfect world children should be allowed to stagger around with free abandon. However, I would be loathe to allow my two kids (under 5) to wander around freely on one of these paths because of the risks to them caused by unsafe and erratic cyclists (unfortunately they do exist). If they hit one of my kids they would be completely responsible according to law but that is of little relevance to me or the child. The solution is a vast increase in the skill/attitude level of poor cyclists (unlikely) or a rethink of the shared cycle/ped situation.

Funny. Vast majority of cycle paths in Finland are actually shared cycle/pedestrian paths, even with mopeds allowed much of the time, and I don't believe anyone considers them unsafe. (Oh, cycling modal share in Finland is also about five times that of UK - quite an achievement considering long and cold winter....)

Anyway, I don't think there's anything fundamentally bad in shared paths. They work just fine when all parties know they're shared and shared equally; yes you have responsibility of your actions but you don't paint a picture of one party being above all else.

Curious how there seems to be no difference between shared paths and everything else in parks. To me it seems clear one is for traffic and the other is for free wandering around. But I guess common sense comes in different flavours.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Right. Now given a situation involving an adult pedestrian behaving unpredictably and a small child learning to ride a bike, or a grandmother with not the best of reflexes riding leisurely, would you agree the person bringing the greater risk is the pedestrian? Just trying to establish that pedestrians also have responsibilities and a collision by itself does not prove the cyclist was at fault.

Not sure whether you are after the legal or the moral position. The legal position as I understand it (IANAL), is that the party that claims to have been injured due to the other party's actions would need to prove negligence on the part of that other party.

As far as the scenarios are concerned, there is not really enough information really to make a firm judgement.

However, in the case of the old lady I would say that (again, IMHO), in the absence of any other factors, she is at fault as she should not be riding in this place if she doesn't have the reflexes to cope with it and is therefore being irresponsible. It is analogous to some doddery, half-blind old guy who hits someone in a car; it's his fault because he shouldn't be on the road. (And there are many examples of the latter.)

In the case of the child, I think the parents are being irresponsible having the child ride in a place that they are not yet ready for.

The person bringing the biggest risk to these situations is the person that brings the bicycle there.

 

[orbiter]

You are a wind up I think. It's unpredictable when children run out no matter how safely we are cycling. What a silly comment to make and one I'd take as an insult. 'Cycling properly'

It's unpredictable when cyclists swerve into the way no matter how safely we're driving..........

Learn to deal with it! (Cycle properly?)

 

[Tommi]

However, in the case of the old lady I would say that (again, IMHO), in the absence of any other factors, she is at fault as she should not be riding in this place if she doesn't have the reflexes to cope with it and is therefore being irresponsible.

Ok, I wasn't clear. I meant in both cases the cyclist behaviour would be totally responsible provided that the pedestrian behaved responsibly themselves. Why does a bicycle make you responsible for other people behaving irresponsibly? What other items have the same magic effect? Kickboard? Rollerblades? Wheelchair? Heavy backbag? Shopping bag?

In the case of the child, I think the parents are being irresponsible having the child ride in a place that they are not yet ready for.

The person bringing the biggest risk to these situations is the person that brings the bicycle there.

In a conflict between lightweight grandmother riding responsibly and a normal (i.e. obese) adult pedestrian behaving erratically I still assert it's the pedestrian bringing the biggest risk to the situation. Bicycle by itself can not be the justification for the simple reason that not all bicycles are the same and not all pedestrians are the same.

 

[Matthew_T]

The only occasions where I have had children run out infront of me is when I have been on a cycle path on the promenade where I live.

Once when I was in Rhos-on-Sea, a child ran out from a car. I had to skid to avoid him. I told his mother that I had nearly gone into him and she apologised politely. I was doing about 27mph when I had to brake.

Secondly, I was in Rhyl. A child was running around the cycle path and decided to walk into my path. Once again I just missed him but this time the parents were a bit more unconcerned. They chose to shout abuse at me when I was explaining that he shouldnt be in the cycle path and they should be taking more care of him.

Children are the worst because parents neglect to take responsible care for them. I am lucky I had my whits about me and aavoided them both.