Pedestrians

[Angelfishsolo]

Nice summary.

Children enjoy running around parks.

I've never seen a British Park (for DCs benifit) with unlocked sheds of toxic chemicals or dangerous drivers - they tend to be open spaces for people.

The most unnecessary user, for me, would be a cyclist.

I hate shared paths with a passion - because I believe parks etc are actually nicer without bikes. In the UK I've never come across an area where cycling on the road wasn't safer and quicker.

Even if I were teaching my child to cycle without stabilisers, I'd choose an industrial area at a quiet time or a quiet road.

Parks in the UK are full of people on foot throwing balls around / dogs running free / toddlers toddling.

That's how it should be.

To cycle across a busy park I think I wouldn't even try, frankly, I'd get off and push.

More fun anyway.

Of course if it is 6.30 am and you are commuting across a cycle path that will genuinely cut your commuting time - that is different.

I would find it hard to agree with you more!

 

[rowan 46]

I agree in a perfect world that all parents would supervise their children adequately, all cyclists would ride responsibly and carefully and all drivers would drive considerately and safely. However the world isn't perfect and neither am I. I ride slowly on shared paths keeping alert for hazards such as dogs and pedestrians. stopping if necessary. Pedestrians are a hazard or at least I treat them as such and by riding to the conditions as they are rather than how I would like them to be I minimise risk thus preventing accidents. I would probably give up cycling if I ever hit a person as I couldn't bear the guilt. The fact that after 40 years I am still cycling proves to my satisfaction that my policy of slowing down on shared paths works for me. I think that riding responsibly eliminates almost all risk my only evidence is that I haven't had even close calls. If I want to ride at speed I get on the road If I don't mind ambling I get on a path.

 

[mangaman]

I agree in a perfect world that all parents would supervise their children adequately, all cyclists would ride responsibly and carefully and all drivers would drive considerately and safely. However the world isn't perfect and neither am I.

I agree rowan.

That's why there should be a hierarchy of provision.

Pedestrians should take priority, then cyclists, then cars.

But I still don't think you can criticise people in shared areas like parks, for not supervising children.

Dogs - I think should be on leads near thouroughfares - but young children - the more freedom they have the better I feel. Claerly their parents can't just ignore them - but freedom to play as a child is something I had and I think is very important.

The paranoid parents who believe a paedo is behind every tree and don't allow their children to do anything are the worst.

As a young child you should be the freeist person around to run and play.

As you get older, you develop road sense, and the problem diminishes anyway.

 

[rowan 46]

I agree rowan.

That's why there should be a hierarchy of provision.

Pedestrians should take priority, then cyclists, then cars.

But I still don't think you can criticise people in shared areas like parks, for not supervising children.

Dogs - I think should be on leads near thouroughfares - but young children - the more freedom they have the better I feel. Claerly their parents can't just ignore them - but freedom to play as a child is something I had and I think is very important.

The paranoid parents who believe a paedo is behind every tree and don't allow their children to do anything are the worst.

As a young child you should be the freeist person around to run and play.

As you get older, you develop road sense, and the problem diminishes anyway.

I think you misunderstand me when I say supervise I am talking about young children who wouldn't be up the park by themselves I am on about the normal supervision that any young child would get I used to supervise my child, as she get older she got more freedom when she was young there was some apparatus I would not let her on as she got bigger I let her use it . Now she is older supervision entails her checking in by phone so I know where she is.

 

[mangaman]

I think you misunderstand me when I say supervise I am talking about young children who wouldn't be up the park by themselves I am on about the normal supervision that any young child would get I used to supervise my child, as she get older she got more freedom when she was young there was some apparatus I would not let her on as she got bigger I let her use it . Now she is older supervision entails her checking in by phone so I know where she is.

Fair point.

I think we mean the same.

Clearly children should be given more independence as they get older.

If she's got a phone, I assume she should be able to avoid cyclists as well.

I was mainly talking of toddlers really - they should be allowed to roam free in a park in my opinion.

 

[rowan 46]

Fair point.

I think we mean the same.

Clearly children should be given more independence as they get older.

If she's got a phone, I assume she should be able to avoid cyclists as well.

I was mainly talking of toddlers really - they should be allowed to roam free in a park in my opinion.

I agree kids should be allowed to run free but you should watch them while they are doing it . I was at the park a few years ago And I watched a little girl put a toddler on a swing. I pointed it out to a very young mum texting and she just shrugged her shoulders and said she would be alright. A couple of seconds later a thud and a scream and one little toddler with a broken arm completely foreseeable and very distressing.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Maybe in your part of the world. In the UK, though, a park is a park, not a cut-through

The parks that I ride through are all connected to the public sidewalks. Both coming into and leaving the parks. There is really only one park that I can think of that the sidewalk/path within it is not connected to the sidewalk outside of the park. And bicycles are prohibited in that particular park. And it's path system is there to move people through the park NOT for children to play on.

The way that those parks is laid out can be a pain in the neck when there is an event in one of the parks and the paths are blocked off preventing people being able to ride through the park.

As was this past weekend, there was some sort of concert in one of the parks that I ride through this past Sunday. Saturday they had the park totally blocked off so that people couldn't use the sidewalk to walk, run, roller skate/blade, cycle through. Usually, the car park is still open, but not this time even that was blocked off.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

They're for fun over here as well, but they are not always "isolated" from the "public" sidewalk system. Some of them are what are known as a "liner park." Such as the rails-to-trial system of trails, and they are advertised as an alternative to getting from Point A to Point B.

And it is each person's responsibility to act in a safe, responsible, predictable manner. No one group of user has the freedom to behave in an unpredictable manner.

All my friends who have kids agree that when going to a park that the parents are responsible for the safety of their children, not some "stranger riding their bicycle" through the park.

Yes, I agree with everyone else in that cyclists, etc. have an obligation to minimize the risk that they present to other users, but that in no way removes the obligation of other park users to also behave in a safe, reasonable, and predictable manner.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

From what I know of your Country the result would be you getting sued.
Also did you not see the girj?

Did you not see where I'd said that SHE had HIT me. And yes, I saw her but even as slowly as I was moving there was no place for me to move to. The better question would be did she not see me. I was only traveling at about 5 or 6MPH, but as I there wasn't any where for me to go other than to keep going forward at a slow pace.

And one last time, SHE is the one who HIT me, I did NOT hit her.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

Yes, but given the inherent dangers of a car park it isn't someplace a parent should let their children wander/play.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

If a parent allows their child(ren) to play hopscotch on the bike/multi use/shared path knowing that at any minute someone can come along on a bicycle, skateboard or roller skates/blades that is not a very responsible parent. Even in a park where the path is separated from the sidewalk/pavement outside of the park it is NOT for children to play on. It is for moving people from one point in the park to another point in the park.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Yes, there is. It is when a person crosses against a red light, in the middle of the block or where there's no crosswalk and it's not marked as being a pedestrian crossing. The punishment varies from city-to-city, county-to-county, state-to-state. It can be anything from a fine to x-number of day's in jail

And even though a person is jaywalking, under the doctrine of last chance if a motorist/cyclist can do anything to avoid running into said pedestrian they are required to do so.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

You may not have said so directly, but you seem to be implying that everyone else in the park has a greater responsibility to be on the lookout than the children's parents. The parents are ultimately responsible for the safety of their children.

Yes, runners/joggers, cyclists, roller skater/bladers, etc. have an obligation to conduct themselves so as to minimize the risk that they present to others in the park. But that goes both ways, pedestrians also have an obligation not to create a risk to other users of the park, multi use/shared path.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

That is probably closer to the truth than up to know what you have been saying.

No, pedestrians are responsible for their safety and need to be aware of what is going on around them. They are not immune from behaving in a predictable manner just because they are pedestrians. Nor does their being pedestrians give them the "right" to behave in a manner that is unsafe to all other users of the path.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

It may be a path and not a road, but everyone who uses it still has an obligation to do so safely and predictably. Just because someone is walking that doesn't give them the right to do so in an unsafe manner putting other path users safety at risk.