Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

It has to be both IMO. You can't just let kids run all over the place when they may be at risk. I agree cyclists must be extra vigilant but you can't lay it all with the cyclist. They wouldn't let their children run all over the main roads ................ or would they?

Agreed, sadly, though there are some parents who do not take proper care of their children.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Option "d" for Jane - which you've forgotten about, for some reason - is that "she can stop, because she's riding at a speed which allows her to do so without endangering anyone or anything". Johnny's incident I grant you is one the cyclist could have done very little about, but the only real way to avoid such an incident is for children to be kept on leads at all times, and I think most people - even most parents - would see the risk of an occasional collision with a cyclist as preferable to that.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

It's not a main road, it's a path. Pedestrians have absolute priority, and that's it.

Agreed it's not a main road, but a bike path. But the parents are still responsible for making sure that their kids are safe.

I suppose that if the kids wonder off into the woods and eat a poisoned mushroom that it's the mushroom's fault for not putting the needs of the child first.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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'

Agreed, when riding in the park we all have a responsibility to ride safely and to be mindful of others in the park. That goes for parents keeping their children under control. So that they do not present a danger to other park users.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

And if they are being monitored correctly by parents they will be in one lane or another and easily identifiable and so avoidable

I'd love to stay and chew the fat with the fluffy brigade but I'm of out to do a bit of 'safe' cycling

Agreed, it's a parents responsibility to keep their children safe.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

If you cycle at an appropriate speed, and give enough room (going onto the grass if necessary) there is no way for a collision to occur.
No, I'm not on a wind-up.

There have been times when I've ridden through the local park(s) where there were so many people on the sidewalk, and/or in the grass or trees being off to the side of the path/sidewalk that going into the grass isn't an option.

And even with slowing down it is still possible for a child or a dog or wild animal to run in front of a cyclist and not give them enough time or room to avoid a crash.

Thre have been times when I've been riding through the park were I've had to slow down to 2 or 3MPH so as to avoid colliding with someone walking in front of me. Sadly, I appear to be in the minority as most people that I see riding through the park(s) do so at speeds that are better suited to riding on the road.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

There have been times when I've ridden through the local park(s) where there were so many people on the sidewalk, and/or in the grass or trees being off to the side of the path/sidewalk that going into the grass isn't an option.

And even with slowing down it is still possible for a child or a dog or wild animal to run in front of a cyclist and not give them enough time or room to avoid a crash.

Thre have been times when I've been riding through the park were I've had to slow down to 2 or 3MPH so as to avoid colliding with someone walking in front of me. Sadly, I appear to be in the minority as most people that I see riding through the park(s) do so at speeds that are better suited to riding on the road.

There you go, then. That's presumably what benb meant by "cycle at an appropriate speed". If you can't avoid a collision, the next best thing is going slowly enough so that if you do collide with someone you'll do them no damage.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I've never liked all these shared-use paths, whether with marked separation or not - they just transfer the car-driver/cyclist antagonism to one of cyclist/pedestrian. They'll only work if they're legally made proper cycle paths on which pedestrians may walk 'permissively' - ie at their own risk. After all, with the network of public footpaths and pavements in this country, pedestrians are the best served of all users (and I write as a keen walker as well as cyclist). If you've ever accidentally walked on marked cycle lanes in Germany without looking you'll know it - if they can work there...

Agreed, I was talking with a gentleman not too long ago about the newly widened sidewalk/MUP and how he thought that I'd be using it more than the street. I explained to him that I usually ride at too fast of a speed to safely use the new MUP. And that just as we cyclists don't like it when motorists pass us too close at 40MPH that pedestrians also don't like it when we pass them at 15 - 20MPH with same narrow margin between us.

He understood what I was saying and agreed.

And as I've said, when I'm riding through the park I slow my speed down. The fastest I've ridden through the park when there are people walking is 9 or 10MPH. Usually much slower.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484216"]
What you've got isn't a clique, but several people disagreeing with you.

A park is a park. It's multi-use. You can't restrict the use to one significant group hugely, just so that they don't get in your way.
[/quote]

That goes both ways, parents can't let their children run wild in the park and then cry foul if those same children end up getting hit by someone on a bicycle.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

The point you are missing is that children should not have to be on the look out for that type of danger in a park.

That is what their parents are for. I guess some here would blame the train if a train track was running through or near a park and a child ran out on to the train tracks and got hit and killed.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484232"]
You are complaining about children having free rein on a path in a park.
[/quote]

Then I guess it's alright to allow those same children to have free rein and to run into the car park in the park, or into the paved driveway leading through and to the other side of the park and the exit.

Even though parks are safe (or at least safer) than other areas within a town, there are still dangers within them. And it is their parents job to make sure that they are safe.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484247"]
You're complaining about children getting in your way in a park, then when several people point out some thinks to you, you claim to be misunderstood. But you're not being misunderstood, you're just complaining about children being allowed free rein in a park.
[/quote]

No, I think that the problem is that some parents exercise little if any control over their children. And then try to blame others when their children are injured.

Here in Florida we have all manner of dangerous animals, from poisonous snakes, to alligators, to poisonous insects. If a child is allowed to just run willy nilly through the park there is a good chance that they're going to encounter one or more of those dangerous animals. Plus here in Florida sink holes have a habit opening up with little warning.

Some of them being large enough to swallow a building or a car, or both.

A child or an adult can get killed falling into one.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

are we actually referring to children or dogs? maybe u should complain about dogs too. but hey i only see dogs on rein and not kids. u cant put a leash on a 5 year old. did you?

Uh, actually growing up my parents had a harness and leash for each of us kids.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I understand the meaning of the word hazard perfectly.
Cycles can be hazards in some situations, but should not be a hazard in a park!

If you're cycling in a park in such a way that you are a hazard, then you're doing it wrong.

You do know, don't you that it is possible for a cyclist to be doing everything right and still end up getting involved in a crash with a child or a pedestrian. And that when all is said and done that the cyclist wouldn't be at fault.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Drivel. Unless someone hides behind a bush and hurls themselves into your path, a cyclist-pedestrian collision should never happen on a path in a park.
If it does, the cyclist was cycling too fast, or not giving enough room, or didn't make the pedestrian aware of his presence, or all three.

You are a pathetic troll and are now the only person to be put on my ignore list - not even Lee has managed that!

Around here there are too many people walking through the parks/MUPs paying more attention to their cell phones than where they are walking. There are also way too many people who are listening to their iPods at a volume that is way too loud. I have come up behind several of the last type where I could hear their music from several feet away. So that giving them any kind of warning that one is behind them or are passing them is useless.