Pedestrians

[Tommi]

Er - there is no such thing in the UK as a segregated cycle path where pedestians are not allowed.

Err, who's saying anything about pedestrians not being allowed somewhere? (I did ask earlier whether cyclists have exclusive use of anything and it turns out no.) However as my quote was about non-segregated cycle paths so I fail to see your point.

My quotes are from Highway Code, you should probably read it. That's really all I can think of to say.

 

[benb]

So you don't consider the pedestrian plugged into their iPod at full volume, eye's glued on their cell/mobile phone and completely and totally oblivious to everything around them, even the verbal warning that a cyclist is approaching them to be malicious?

No, because you're posing the risk to them, not the other way round. Why not just make sure that when you pass them you leave enough room so that if they change direction suddenly you still won't hit them?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

See. You don't think that if a pedestrian on a path stops or changes direction, and there is a collision, that it's your fault for not leaving enough room or going too fast.

You are plain, flat, wrong.

How much space is enough? What happens when said pedestrian stops, changes directions and starts running in the direction of the cyclist? That does happen. I've seen pedestrian suddenly stop, change directions and start running. If there was a cyclist following behind at a previously safe distance gets hit by the now running pedestrian, I'm guessing that in your mind that the cyclist is still at fault. And was somehow either traveling too fast or was too close to the pedestrian in question, or both.

I'm sorry, but that is totally asinine. If the pedestrian is behaving in an unpredictable manner, and suddenly and without warning changes direction and speed how is the cyclist suppose to know what they are planning on doing? Why shouldn't they take responsibility for their own safety and behave in a predictable manner?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484778"]
You're being offensive by referring to her weight, and you're using a racist term.

This isn't some forties Tom and Jerry cartoon.

If you didn't realise that you were using term which has underlying racist tones, then fair enough. I assume you'll now stop using it, and change the title of your youtube clip?


[/quote]

I've heard the term "big mama" applied to any large woman regardless of race, the same with the term "big daddy." I think that you are reading too much into the use of the term "big mama."

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

I thought that it was your's, Benb's, and User's position that Peds ALWAYS had "priority" regardless of where they were. Are you now admitting that there are times/places where they don't have "automatic priority?"

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484826"]
Cycle paths are for all cyclists.
[/quote]

But Peds still have "priority," right? Even though it's a "CYCLE path."

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I thought that it was your's, Benb's, and User's position that Peds ALWAYS had "priority" regardless of where they were. Are you now admitting that there are times/places where they don't have "automatic priority?"

No you are getting confused. In all the places we have talked about Peds have priority. If a Ped goes walking along a Black MTB route then they are at fault. If a ped walks along a road that is signed no pedestrians they are at fault. We have not discussed any of those places.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484828"]
Your issue is with your definition of irresponsible.
[/quote]

To me it is irresponsible for a person to be listening to their iPod at such a volume that the person doing so doesn't know what is going on around them, the same with using their cell/mobile phone or using both to the point where they do not know what is going on around them.

It is also irresponsible for one to take their children to a park and all their toddlers to "roam free" and be a potential problem for others trying to enjoy the park.

And it is irresponsible for someone walking down a cycle path to have priority over cyclists who should have priority on a CYCLE path. How logical is it to give Peds priority on a path that is clearly designed for cyclists?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

To me it is irresponsible for a person to be listening to their iPod at such a volume that the person doing so doesn't know what is going on around them, the same with using their cell/mobile phone or using both to the point where they do not know what is going on around them.

It is also irresponsible for one to take their children to a park and all their toddlers to "roam free" and be a potential problem for others trying to enjoy the park.

And it is irresponsible for someone walking down a cycle path to have priority over cyclists who should have priority on a CYCLE path. How logical is it to give Peds priority on a path that is clearly designed for cyclists?

So by your definition it is irresponsible for a deaf person to be out walking without a hearing dog!!!!

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484829"]
Sorry, bud, but it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Your lot borrow a lot of child protection response from us.

Another thing that you're doing is making bold claims, and then using extremes to justify your position.

No-one is put under investigation for allowing their child to run around in a park, to the level that they might (how dare they!!) end up on a path where someone is cycling. Now stop being ridiculous.

Can you not understand the difference between an alligator and a cyclist? If you can't, there's no hope.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but it is YOU who doesn't know what they're talking about. I live here in Florida, I have seen the cases on the news on TV where parents have found themselves the center of an investigation because of their actions or in actions.

I live in Florida, I know about the dangers that "lurk" in the parks. Where I live there are two parks/wildlife preserves/refugees. That are home to poisonous snakes, alligators, wild cats, coyotes, wolves. Then there are the poisonous plants.

A couple of years ago, there was a woman down here on vacation/holiday from somewhere up north. She was visiting one of the parks on the Hillsborough river, possibly the Hillsborough State Park. She'd let her little dog off of it's leash (a violation of the leash law) and it was attacked and eaten by an alligator. One of the first question that she asked was "why aren't there more signs warning people about alligators?" How many signs are needed?

This is Florida, any decent size body of water likely houses one or more alligators. They literally are everywhere down here. So much so that there are trappers who make a living going into neighborhoods to remove so-called "nuisance" alligators. Somewhere in the state someone looses a dog or a cat or worse a child to an alligator on an almost daily basis.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm sorry, but it is YOU who doesn't know what they're talking about. I live here in Florida, I have seen the cases on the news on TV where parents have found themselves the center of an investigation because of their actions or in actions.

I live in Florida, I know about the dangers that "lurk" in the parks. Where I live there are two parks/wildlife preserves/refugees. That are home to poisonous snakes, alligators, wild cats, coyotes, wolves. Then there are the poisonous plants.

A couple of years ago, there was a woman down here on vacation/holiday from somewhere up north. She was visiting one of the parks on the Hillsborough river, possibly the Hillsborough State Park. She'd let her little dog off of it's leash (a violation of the leash law) and it was attacked and eaten by an alligator. One of the first question that she asked was "why aren't there more signs warning people about alligators?" How many signs are needed?

This is Florida, any decent size body of water likely houses one or more alligators. They literally are everywhere down here. So much so that there are trappers who make a living going into neighborhoods to remove so-called "nuisance" alligators. Somewhere in the state someone looses a dog or a cat or worse a child to an alligator on an almost daily basis.

Maybe we could have a differences between UK and USA sub forum?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

If the cyclist is behaving responsibly, the likelihood of a collision is pretty much zero. (suicidal pedestrians hiding behind bushes and leaping into your path notwithstanding)
And pedestrians zigzagging erratically isn't irresponsible - it's normal pedestrian behaviour.

I'm going to keep saying this until you understand: if a pedestrian suddenly stops or changes direction and there is a collision, the cyclist was passing them too close, or going too fast, or both.

Maybe it's "normal" pedestrian behavior in the UK, but it is not normal pedestrian behavior over here. About the only ones over here who would be "zigzagging" or behaving in some sort of erratic behavior are drunks and drug addicts and they'd be stopped by the police and given a field sobriety test.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484832"]
Flower pickers don't run into your path.

It is correct to expect cyclists not to collide with something in their path.

So you do everything to avoid running into children and dogs, but not a young women in a crowd?



[/quote]

Why the bloody hell do you keep harping on one isolated incident? And how many times do I have to say that if I had stopped it would have caused a much worse crash involving the people behind me?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484833"]
You said she was travelling at twice your speed. That's an impact of 18mph.

If you had stopped, and someone walked into you from behind without slowing (they wouldn't have, but I'll play) then it would have been an impact speed of 3mph.
[/quote]

That is a guess as I wasn't looking at my computer, all I know is that she was moving faster then I was.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484835"]
A cyclist is at fault if he rides into a pedestrian.

Again (your ipod example) you seem to keep giving excuses for riding into people. Yes, headphones wearers can be annoying, but you just have to deal with them.



[/quote]

I'll tell you what, tomorrow when I go out for my ride I'll keep track of the number of people that I see walking or running while listening to their iPods. Today when I was on my ride I had two runners in front of me with several yards between us. Both were running faster than I was riding and both had their iPods in.