Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Even if one is riding at a slow speed, it is still possible not to avoid a crash.

Many, many years ago in high school social studies my teacher gave a similar example to the one I used with Jane Cyclist. Only it was a car driving down the road, with parked cars on one side, oncoming traffic on the other side of the road, and a child runs out into the path of the car. According to her the legal option was to hit the child, and than stop and wait for the authorities to show up.

Regardless of the speed one is traveling, it is possible for a child (or a dog, or wild animal) to appear in the path of a bicycle, car or horse and the operator having no way of stopping in time to avoid the crash.

 

[tongskie01]

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.

you might just as well dismount and walk as it is not safe to cycle on these conditions. there are situations that we cant avoid a collision, but reality is accidents can happen. and if accidents regularly happens maybe the local council might want to have a look at health and safety issue of this shared path. and i can't see them prohibiting the use of devices such as ipods or mobile phones while walking on a shared path.

 

[tongskie01]

[QUOTE 1484303"]
You're still yet to explain what danger a cyclist at 2mph is to a child...
[/quote]

12 stone cyclist might fall over a child while cycling in the park. probably a clipless moment

 

[JonnyBlade]

You WANT children wandering about where they can get hit and hurt possibly looking at a serious injury or even death? Is that what you are saying?

The only real MUP that we have where I live, the "worse" that I have seen is people allowing their dogs to roam free on it. However when I am riding through the parks in the downtown area the parents have control of their children and keep them from just wandering about/playing on the sidewalk. And because sadly so many cyclists bomb down the sidewalk as if they're out on the road most of the parents are constantly warning their children to be careful of the approaching bikes.

As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, when I'm riding through these parks, I slow my speed down so that if a small child or dog "pops" up in front of my bike I can stop quicker.

There are some places where children shouldn't be allowed to wander/play. And a bike/multi use path is one of those places.

Don't even go there. Apparently when I note this I am just complaining which I have been reliably informed is wrong

 

[JonnyBlade]

[QUOTE 1484309"]
That's a different argument.

I spent a lovely afternoon in a park on Saturday with my boys. Kids everywhere, bikes everywhere. A couple of weddings taking place. A land train. A little fair. Boats on the lake. Ice creams. Toddlers with stabilizers, scooters, wobbling allover the place.

Funnily enough, the kids were all having a whale of a time, running and cycling freely. And you know what? No collisions. None whatsoever. The only time it came close was when a couple of cyclists buzzed their way through. I think they thought kids should be on reins, and should be kept out of their way. Nutters.
[/quote]


You really are boring me now

 

[BentMikey]

Moderators, could we close this topic now please? It's become a schoolyard misbehaviour example of note. There are no winners, only losers.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

It is NOT a bike path. Regardless of the segregation is it a shared use path. Pedestrians always have priority. As for your last sentence it is not even worthy of an answer.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

It is a PARK. A place for children to play. Many parks actually have no cycling policies becuase too many people treat them as cycle ways.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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

That explains a lot about your hazard perception.

 

[benb]

@Digital_Cowboy, I'm not going to reply to every single post you have made, but in no particular order:

• Why are you muddying the water talking about poisonous mushrooms and train tracks? It's perfectly obvious we are only talking about cycling through a park. Things like that, and open mine shafts, are rather conspicuous by their absence in parks, at least in the UK. I never said parents shouldn't protect their children from hazards, but that cyclists in parks shouldn't be a hazard.
• No matter what signage is on the path, it is shared use, and as such pedestrians have priority. If there are too many pedestrians to pass safely, then you get off and walk. If you cycle at an appropriate speed, giving enough room, the probability of a collision is pretty much nil. If you are cycling in a park in such a way that you pose a hazard to pedestrians, then you are doing it wrong. Yes, someone could run out from behind a bush and hurl themselves into your path; that is pretty much the only situation I can think of where a collision would be unavoidable.
• Pedestrians can do what they like on paths, and that includes wandering back and forth in an unpredictable zigzag. Pedestrians have priority; you as a cyclist are bringing the danger; it's your responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not theirs to avoid you. If you don't want to deal with that, don't cycle on paths.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

@Digital_Cowboy, I'm not going to reply to every single post you have made, but in no particular order:

• Why are you muddying the water talking about poisonous mushrooms and train tracks? It's perfectly obvious we are only talking about cycling through a park. Things like that, and open mine shafts, are rather conspicuous by their absence in parks, at least in the UK. I never said parents shouldn't protect their children from hazards, but that cyclists in parks shouldn't be a hazard.
• No matter what signage is on the path, it is shared use, and as such pedestrians have priority. If there are too many pedestrians to pass safely, then you get off and walk. If you cycle at an appropriate speed, giving enough room, the probability of a collision is pretty much nil. If you are cycling in a park in such a way that you pose a hazard to pedestrians, then you are doing it wrong. Yes, someone could run out from behind a bush and hurl themselves into your path; that is pretty much the only situation I can think of where a collision would be unavoidable.
• Pedestrians can do what they like on paths, and that includes wandering back and forth in an unpredictable zigzag. Pedestrians have priority; you as a cyclist are bringing the danger; it's your responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not theirs to avoid you. If you don't want to deal with that, don't cycle on paths.

To summarise then. Pads have priority on these paths. Cyclists need to be aware, slow down or stop if necessary. Simplez

 

[benb]

I can't understand how this turned into a massive argument.

 

[BentMikey]

Should you behave any differently for pedestrians on the roads?

 

[JonnyBlade]

I can't understand how this turned into a massive argument.

I love the way you Guys ignore stuff. You can't even get that right

Massive arguement? It's a debate and the funniest one I've been in for quite some time. You brighten my day and will forever be remembered as the 3 Muskateers .......... fighting for the just

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Should you behave any differently for pedestrians on the roads?

Peds have priority everywhere so yes.