Pedestrians

[Alun]

Interesting leaflet on Shared Use Paths here http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/Info sheets/ff04.pdf
Maybe a little dated, but I like the quaint photos.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484308"]
Any driver entering a car park in a park should expect there to be children wandering around.
[/quote]

Given the very real danger that the car park presents parents should not allow their children to "wander" around the car park.

As it is not a play area and children have no business wandering or playing in it.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Given the very real danger that the car park presents parents should not allow their children to "wander" around the car park.

As it is not a play area and children have no business wandering or playing in it.

You do appreciate that driving is a privelidge and walking a right don't you?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

Once again; a pedestrian will always have priority. If a child is playing hopscotch say hello and cycle around him/her.

 

[rowan 46]

You do appreciate that driving is a privelidge and walking a right don't you?

I am speaking from ignorance and only guessing. But there is an offence of jaywalking in the states it may be there are different priorities over there.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

Not entirely, if a parent allows their child(ren) to run wild in the park with little to no supervision than it is the parent's fault if their child(ren) is/are injured. Yes, children are and should be safe in a park. But there are things within most if not all parks that present a danger to children.

As an example, there is usually some sort of storage shed for supplies for the maintenance of the park. If a parent takes their child(ren) to a park and let's them run wild and they end up getting into the shed and poisoning themselves who is responsible? The parent or the park management?

[QUOTE 1484309"]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]

That is usually how it is when I am riding through the park as well. Put parents here take responsibility for their children and when they see someone on a bike on the sidewalk/MUP they tell their children to be careful of the bike. Because sadly too many cyclists as I have said before will ride at speeds as if they're out on the road. And sadly they do not slow down when they encounter other people in the park/on the sidewalk/MUP.

Even though there are signs posted instructing cyclists to yield to pedestrians.

As I've said I slow down so as not to pose a risk to others in the park and when/if someone who is walking in front of me realizes that I am behind them. They'll move aside and apologize for "slowing" me down. I tell 'em that there's no need to apologize and continue on my way.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I am speaking from ignorance and only guessing. But there is an offence of jaywalking in the states it may be there are different priorities over there.

I agree. I raised the possibility of cultural differences in an earlier post but it was not addressed.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

@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.

I was trying to point out that besides cyclists that there are all sorts of dangers in a park and that not all of them are as obvious as a cyclist. And that is why parents need to take responsibility for their children's actions while in the park.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Oooh I missed this one, takes me back.

I had reins on me when smaller, I think I had it until I had learnt to stop being a little monkey and running in front of everyone and anyone To be fair I think I only had it whilst learning to walk so my parents could be close in case of a tumble, its certainly not on any pictures of me once I stopped toddling.

I think that my parents used them for the same reason. And I have no direct memory of it, just what my mother told me when I was older.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

If ridden properly, a cyclist should not pose a hazard to pedestrians.

I'm sorry, but the more you repeat that phrase the more you sound like those drivers who think that bikes don't belong on "their" roads. As there are times when the person on a bike can be doing everything correct and still end up in a crash with a pedestrian.

 

[benb]

I was trying to point out that besides cyclists that there are all sorts of dangers in a park and that not all of them are as obvious as a cyclist. And that is why parents need to take responsibility for their children's actions while in the park.

Yes, perhaps. (although in the UK I am struggling to think of a hazard more serious than a pond)
Cyclists though should not be a hazard (or at least the risk should be as close to zero as makes no difference)

I never said that parents should avoid taking responsibility for the safety of their children, but cyclists should not be on the list of things they need to be careful of in a park.
A park should be a place where kids can play freely without fear.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

If you mean wandering into the road with looking, I agree (although as responsible road users, we should try and be ready for that sort of thing).
If you mean wandering about unpredictably on a path, I disagree, as they have every right to do so.

I have to disagree with you on that. Everyone on the path has an obligation to use it in a predictable manner. Otherwise that'd be like saying that motorists have the "right" to behave in an unpredictable manner on the street.

Which judging by the way that some drive they feel that way now anyway

And I do have to agree that where the road is concerned that (at least over here in the States) the doctrine of last chance says that cars, bicycles, etc. if they can safely avoid a crash are required to do so, even if a pedestrian is behaving in an illegal manner.

 

[benb]

I'm sorry, but the more you repeat that phrase the more you sound like those drivers who think that bikes don't belong on "their" roads. As there are times when the person on a bike can be doing everything correct and still end up in a crash with a pedestrian.

That is vanishingly unlikely. OK, the risk will never be zero, so I shouldn't have said "a cyclist should not pose a hazard to pedestrians".
How about "If ridden properly, a cyclist should not pose a significant hazard to pedestrians."
And by that I mean that pedestrians don't need to look where they are going on a path, and can behave as unpredictably as they want.

 

[benb]

I have to disagree with you on that. Everyone on the path has an obligation to use it in a predictable manner. Otherwise that'd be like saying that motorists have the "right" to behave in an unpredictable manner on the street.

Which judging by the way that some drive they feel that way now anyway.

No, because it's a path not a road.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes, perhaps. (although in the UK I am struggling to think of a hazard more serious than a pond)
Cyclists though should not be a hazard (or at least the risk should be as close to zero as makes no difference)

I never said that parents should avoid taking responsibility for the safety of their children, but cyclists should not be on the list of things they need to be careful of in a park.
A park should be a place where kids can play freely without fear.

Well said.