Pedestrians

[JonnyBlade]

[QUOTE 1484806"]
You didn't bold the important bit-

Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.


[/quote]

Does it not say be prepared? Doesn't say that pedestrian safety is before cyclist safety. It says be prepared as in prepared in case of not be prepared because you have to

 

[locker]

I am angry at myself for thinking you had changed. You still fail to accept the basic legal premiss that unless stated Peds have priority. You also fail to see that the big mama title is offencive on so many levels.

like I said before I will not enter into debate about racism

but watch the film Big Mama with Martin Lawrence starring as Big Mama it is very funny & thats where I got the title for my vid

and again yes I was going too fast I regret hitting the poor girl (even though it didn`t show it in the vid)

I think its time this thread finished as its getting no where with so many people getting off the original subject of pedestrians



ps I do accept that peds have priority

 

[Bman]

Does it not say be prepared? Doesn't say that pedestrian safety is before cyclist safety. It says be prepared as in prepared in case of not be prepared because you have to

These are rules for cyclists, when around pedestrians on shared spaces. Prepare to stop if you have to. For instance, if you're approaching a ped that hasnt seen you, get ready to stop.


That means travel at a speed safe for the conditions. Its our [cyclists] responsibilty to do so.

The same goes for if a pedestrian might be round that corner or might walk out from behind that fountain. Get ready to stop in case they are!

+1 User, I was going to bold that bit, once I had caught up with the thread.

 

[JonnyBlade]

These are rules for cyclists, when around pedestrians on shared spaces. Prepare to stop if you have to. For instance, if you're approaching a ped that hasnt seen you, get ready to stop.


That means travel at a speed safe for the conditions. Its our [cyclists] responsibilty to do so.

The same goes for if a pedestrian might be round that corner or might walk out from behind that fountain. Get ready to stop in case they are!

+1 User, I was going to bold that bit, once I had caught up with the thread.

Quite right it does suggest the cyclist be prepared. Can you please tell me where it identifies a right of way rather than a 'suggested' behaviour. I fully agree about realistic cycling for the right conditions but there is no real commitment to the right of way. In other sections when referring to vehicles it mentions right of way where appropriate but I cannot see it reference pedestrians and cyclists. All I see on here at the moment is a series of interpretations

 

[JonnyBlade]

[QUOTE 1484812"]
Be prepared means expect that there might be pedestrians in your way and be ready to stop. It doesn't mean brace yourself for a collision.

Are you suggesting you shouldn't have to be ready to stop rather than ride into a pedestrian?


[/quote]

Do you actually read what anyone posts? I cannot believe you keep making stuff up. You assume far too much. Read the words

 

[Tommi]

Rules for pedestrians

1
Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.


12
Bus and cycle lanes. Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic.


13
Routes shared with cyclists. Some cycle tracks run alongside footpaths or pavements, using a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot. Segregated routes may also incorporate short lengths of tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct side. On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series of flat-topped bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel (tramline pattern). Not all routes which are shared with cyclists are segregated. Take extra care where this is so (see Rule 62).


32
Buses. Get on or off a bus only when it has stopped to allow you to do so. Watch out for cyclists when you are getting off. Never cross the road directly behind or in front of a bus. Wait until it has moved off and you can see clearly in both directions.

While not all of it is specifically about shared paths in parks, the overall impression I get is that pedestrians actually do have responsibilities too.

 

[JonnyBlade]

While not all of it is specifically about shared paths in parks, the overall impression I get is that pedestrians actually do have responsibilities too.

+1

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1484816"]
Everyone else can follow it. Well, apart from one other.

What it comes down to is that regardless of the responsibilities of others, you must be prepared to stop if something gets in your way. That's your responsibility -not to ride into anyone. That's not made up, it's in your own quote.

It's no different to driving on the road.
[/quote]

To quote a quote you quoted to me - Time to use the ignore function

 

[JonnyBlade]

[QUOTE 1484816"]
Everyone else can follow it. Well, apart from one other.

What it comes down to is that regardless of the responsibilities of others, you must be prepared to stop if something gets in your way. That's your responsibility -not to ride into anyone. That's not made up, it's in your own quote.

It's no different to driving on the road.
[/quote]



Have I ever said I would not? Where humanly possible cars should stop for pedestrians. It doesn't give them the right of way on roads. There is a difference

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

So then where is this old lady or child suppose to ride? As in both examples they obviously cannot ride on the road with the rest of us cyclists. And hasn't it been stated already that the park is there in part for children to LEARN how to ride their bikes?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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 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.

Tommi,

I agree with your logic. And would also like a clear answer as to why if the cyclist is behaving in a responsible manner that the other person's irresponsible behavior doesn't matter.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484717"]
Neglect is neglect. And the reality is a whole lot different from what the tabloids or the staged TV shows would have you believe.

No-one will be investigated by social services for letting their children run around in a park.

Now stop being ridiculous.


[/quote]

You clearly have no idea how things work here in the States. Yes, if a parent here in the States was to take their children to a park and allowed their TODDLERS to "roam free" they would/could very well find themselves in the center of a child abuse/neglect investigation. Particularly here in Florida where as I have said before there are plenty of natural dangers, i.e. alligators, poisonous snakes, poisonous plants, lakes, the bay/gulf/ocean, etc. A child needs to be supervised. And not allowed to just go off anywhere by him or herself.

Plus there is the chance that the child could prove to be a bother to someone else who is trying to enjoy the park, or who could get into trouble because they have willfully damaged private or public property.

Older children, yes are given more freedom to run or roam free, but even still they need parental supervision. And if you'll recall the original age group discussed was toddlers not children in general. Toddlers are the ones who are at the most risk and need the most supervision. All of my friends who have children agree with me that if a parent were to go to a park and allow their TODDLER to "roam free" would find themselves in the middle of a child abuse/neglect investigation.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484718"]
I've never disagreed with that. Your position is and always has been that the hazards on paths are the things that get in your way, not that run into you. Flower pickers and unpredictable children do not run into cyclists. Children may run into your path, and then it's your responsibility not to ride into them.

I don't see how it could be any clearer.
[/quote]

Flower pickers need to exercise self-control and not put themselves in a position where they might be hit by a cyclist, and children need to be properly supervised by their parents so as not to be at risk of just "wandering" into one's path.

And I do, do everything that I humanly can to avoid running into small children and dogs. However it is unrealistic to expect either a car or a bicycle to stop on a dime just because some bloody pedestrian ran into their path.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484721"]
Then you were riding too fast. Again, it's simple.



Yes, it would be right for you to stop. No-one would have run into you.

You've claimed that the impact speed was 18mph. You were riding too fast.



[/quote]

At the fastest I was traveling around 5 or 6MPH, silly me, I wasn't watching my computer instead I choose to watch the people walking. I was probably going slower than 5 or 6MPH. And as I said there were people walking behind me, so yes any one of them could have walked into me if I had stopped suddenly to avoid the gal who was in front of me.

 

[joebingo]

Is this thread still going?

*yawn*