rowan 46
Über Member
- Location
- birmingham
then you are wrong the risk is minimal not zero
Pedestrians
- Thread starter benb
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
then you are wrong the risk is minimal not zero
I disagee. From the perspective of the pedestrian, the cyclist is still a hazard, regardless of competency.
"Competent cyclists do not pose a risk to pedestrians" would be closer, but still not entirely true. Something unplanned still might happen, even if travelling the same speed (or slower) than the pedestrians.
But I see the point your trying to make
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Swap minimal for infinitesimal and we agree.
rowan 46
Über Member
- Location
- birmingham
[QUOTE 1484388"]
Competent cyclists are as much a risk to pedestrians as other pedestrians.
[/quote]
I agree with that statement
Competent cyclists are as much a risk to pedestrians as other pedestrians.
[/quote]
I agree with that statement
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
The likelyhood of a competent cyclist causing problem for a pedestrian is so close to zero as not to matter.I disagee. From the perspective of the pedestrian, the cyclist is still a hazard, regardless of competency.
"Competent cyclists do not pose a risk to pedestrians" would be closer, but still not entirely true. Something unplanned still might happen, even if travelling the same speed (or slower) than the pedestrians.
But I see the point your trying to make
fine, but leave the nasty attitude toward pedestrians who don't meet approval at homewow! back to talking sense again, glad I`ve pulled you all together again, now behave yourselves, got to go out on the cycle path for the 30 mins
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
So far as I know there hasn't been any crashes between cyclists and oblivious walkers, but I would imagine that it's only a matter of time before it does happen.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
Oh so you haven't seen the big mamma video?
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
[QUOTE 1484304"]
Scenario 1 - easy. She's cycling too fast. Were she at an appropriate speed she wouldn't have to veer anyway, she'd just stop.
[/quote]
Even if she is traveling at an "appropriate" speed she can still encounter a child or an adult or dog/wild animal in her path and not have enough time to stop.
You do know that that is one of the big dangers with salmon cyclists on the road, right? That reaction times are NOT fast enough to avoid a crash. Even though they seem to think that by doing so that they are "safer" as they can see what's coming at them and get out of the way.
And children, or dogs, or wild animals can be moving faster then they appear to be moving.
Also think of it like this, just like the road that goes through the middle of town is for MOVING people from one point to another. So to is the bike/multi use path that is going through the middle of a park.
It is there to MOVE people from one point within/out the park to another point within/out of the park. It is NOT for children to stop on and play. It is for MOVING people from Point A to Point B. And just like the road(s) that goes through town it can and does present a danger to those who do not know how to properly use it.
Scenario 1 - easy. She's cycling too fast. Were she at an appropriate speed she wouldn't have to veer anyway, she'd just stop.
[/quote]
Even if she is traveling at an "appropriate" speed she can still encounter a child or an adult or dog/wild animal in her path and not have enough time to stop.
You do know that that is one of the big dangers with salmon cyclists on the road, right? That reaction times are NOT fast enough to avoid a crash. Even though they seem to think that by doing so that they are "safer" as they can see what's coming at them and get out of the way.
And children, or dogs, or wild animals can be moving faster then they appear to be moving.
Also think of it like this, just like the road that goes through the middle of town is for MOVING people from one point to another. So to is the bike/multi use path that is going through the middle of a park.
It is there to MOVE people from one point within/out the park to another point within/out of the park. It is NOT for children to stop on and play. It is for MOVING people from Point A to Point B. And just like the road(s) that goes through town it can and does present a danger to those who do not know how to properly use it.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
I wonder if there is a language barrier or cultural difference here? In the UK parks are for fun and are not a means of getting from A to B. They exist to allow people to have fun and act in a carefree manner. They are not trainin facilities, thorofares or velodromes.
tongskie01
Active Member
- Location
- blackpool england
its just a matter of time? how long have you been cycling on the shared path? matter of time is infinite. as long as we perceive the dangers of cycling on the shared path we cyclist must take the necessary measures in order to minimise or eliminate the possibility of accidents.
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
[QUOTE 1484306"]
Well done, you appear to have got it now.
The other bloke won't answer, so I'll ask you - what's the risk to a child from a cyclist riding at 2mph?
[/quote]
It's not that I "got it now," if you go back and read some of my posts you'll see that I have said that I've always ridden as slowly as needed to avoid hitting someone in the park. That doesn't mean that even with the care that I take that a crash still might not happen.
As an example a month or so ago, I was riding on the street past the park that when I am riding in the opposite direction that I ride through. There was a concert of some sort going on in the park, and the street that I was on was closed to motor vehicle traffic. As I was slowly making my way through the street and the people walking some gal who was walking in the opposite direction hit my handlebar.
Cause I was going slow it wasn't as bad as it could have been, i.e. both of us ending up on the ground or what have you. She kept walking, and I kept on riding.
The risk to a child from a cyclist riding at 2MPH are broken bones, concussion, and worse case death.
I weigh about 205lbs according to my last checkup. I ride a bike that weighs about 20 or so pounds. What do you think the results would be of 200+lbs rider/bike landing on a small child?
Well done, you appear to have got it now.
The other bloke won't answer, so I'll ask you - what's the risk to a child from a cyclist riding at 2mph?
[/quote]
It's not that I "got it now," if you go back and read some of my posts you'll see that I have said that I've always ridden as slowly as needed to avoid hitting someone in the park. That doesn't mean that even with the care that I take that a crash still might not happen.
As an example a month or so ago, I was riding on the street past the park that when I am riding in the opposite direction that I ride through. There was a concert of some sort going on in the park, and the street that I was on was closed to motor vehicle traffic. As I was slowly making my way through the street and the people walking some gal who was walking in the opposite direction hit my handlebar.
Cause I was going slow it wasn't as bad as it could have been, i.e. both of us ending up on the ground or what have you. She kept walking, and I kept on riding.
The risk to a child from a cyclist riding at 2MPH are broken bones, concussion, and worse case death.
I weigh about 205lbs according to my last checkup. I ride a bike that weighs about 20 or so pounds. What do you think the results would be of 200+lbs rider/bike landing on a small child?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
From what I know of your Country the result would be you getting sued.
Also did you not see the girj?
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
[QUOTE 1484307"]
It's a park. Children are supposed to run around in them. If a cyclist rides into a child in a park then the cyclist is riding too fast.
[/quote]
Exactly, it's a park, but that doesn't mean that a parent can allow their children to run wild and interfere with other people trying to enjoy the park. And a bike/multi use path is not someplace where children need to be playing. They can and should be playing everywhere else BUT on the bike/multi use path. As it is there to facilitate the moving of people not only in and out of the park, but through the park.
It is not for playing hopscotch on, or tic-tac-toe on, or any other game the children like to play.
It's a park. Children are supposed to run around in them. If a cyclist rides into a child in a park then the cyclist is riding too fast.
[/quote]
Exactly, it's a park, but that doesn't mean that a parent can allow their children to run wild and interfere with other people trying to enjoy the park. And a bike/multi use path is not someplace where children need to be playing. They can and should be playing everywhere else BUT on the bike/multi use path. As it is there to facilitate the moving of people not only in and out of the park, but through the park.
It is not for playing hopscotch on, or tic-tac-toe on, or any other game the children like to play.
- Status