Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484416"]
You are forgetting one thing which is the difference between motorists and peds. The road traffic act.
[/quote]

I'm in the States and am unfamiliar with your "road traffic act."

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

the use of a warning device like a cycle bell is highly recommended.

Except that as I have said already there are too many people who have the earbuds to their iPod in their ears and the volume so loud that nothing short of a claymore mine being set off right behind them is going to register with them. I've lost count of the number of times I've given (in my best DI voice) a loud warning that I was behind them and nothing, zero, nada reaction from them.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484426"]
..and we've established that the risk at 2mph is minimal, and certainly not death, as you're about to claim.[/quote]

The chance of death may be very small, but it is still there. Which is why when it happens people blow it all out of proportion.

[QUOTE 1484426"]A path through a park is a path through a park. Maybe things are different over there, but in the UK a shared use path in a park is not restricted.[/quote]

Out of all of the parks within about a 10 or so mile radius of my apartment there is only one that I know of that the paths are restricted. And that is that bicycles are not allowed in that park. Which probably has more to do with the park being more of a wildlife refuge than an actual park.

[QUOTE 1484426"]I understand you saying that adults should supervise their children. I disagree to what extent. Parks are there for children to run around in, not pull at the reins their parent is holding.[/quote]

Agree, but even within a park a child's right/ability to run around in it doesn't mean that they can do so if it interferes with the right/ability of another park goer to enjoy the park as well. Over here we have a little saying, "Your right to do as you please ends where my nose begins."

(I have to break this up)

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484426"]In a park, regardless of how careful the parents are being, there is always the risk that something will appear in your path. You need to start from there. And then you control your speed so that you can avoid conflict in this situation. Ride properly like that and it doesn't matter how many 'out of control' children there are around.[/quote]

Agreed, but you seem to be putting more responsibility on the cyclist to control their actions and not on the parents to supervise their children.s

[QUOTE 1484426"]The same as a pedestrian landing on a small child. Minimal likelihood, unpredictable impact.[/quote]

The child (unless the adult is very small themself) is going to come out the looser in such an encounter.

[QUOTE 1484426"]In the UK a park is a park. All cyclists should enter that park expecting there to be 2-feet-high hazards.[/quote]

Agreed, but they are not the only one's who have to keep the safety of the little one's in mind.

[QUOTE 1484426"]You might want to take a trip to the Vondelpark in Amsterdam. You know -Amsterdam. Cycling heaven. Everyone getting from A to B in harmony. No deaths.

Maybe not, but it's for children to learn to cycle on.[/quote]

Finally something we can fully agree on. A path whether it's a multi use/shared path or not it is for walking/riding on, learning to ride on, not for children to sit on and play on.

[QUOTE 1484426"]Again, regardless, you should always enter the car park on the understanding that there may be a child around. If you don't, then you're irresponsible.[/quote]

Agreed, but that doesn't absolve other path users of behaving in a responsible and predictable manner.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484426"]You're right. Cyclists should not feature on the list.[/quote]

Agreed, to a point, but as long as both cyclists and pedestrians or cyclists and motorists mix there is going to be some risk to one or the other group. Sadly there is no way around that fact.

[QUOTE 1484426"]No. Doddery cyclists, toddlers learning to ride. Groups of walkers. Wheelchairs. Pushchairs. None of these are entirely predictable, and none of them should be.[/quote]

Agreed, none of them beyond being predictably unpredictable are sadly very predictable, but they should if for no other reason than their personal safety act in as predictable a manner as is possible. And they should not expect that others are always going to be on the lookout for them or their safety.

[QUOTE 1484426"]And we live in a society. It's shared responsibility. I'd hope that you'd look out for a lost child rather than leaving them to it because it's their parent's responsibility. In the same way you should look out for others on shared paths, as you're responsible for their safety as well as your own.
[/quote]

Agreed, it is a shared responsibility. No one group has the right to behave in a manner that puts another at risk. Yes, I would and I have in the past. Agreed, but again that doesn't mean that others on the path have a "right" to behave in a manner that puts me at undo risk either.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

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.

Why didn't you stop when it became apparent she was about to walk into you?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

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.

This may well be true in the US, but not here. If someone wants to - say - suddenly cross the path because they've seen some wild flowers, they can do so. Without looking. If some dick (yes, Locker, I'm talking about you) rides into them because he's hammering along on his bike, going far too fast to stop, then the cyclist, not the pedestrian, is absolutely at fault. Just as motor vehicles have a responsibility on the roads to make some allowances for wobbly cyclists (it's in our highway code somewhere) because motor vehicles bring the danger to the highway environment, so too do cyclists have a responsibility to allow for pedestrians zig zagging about the place, because cylists bring the danger to the shared path environment. Pedestrians are under no obligation to check blind spots, indicate or anything else before they move around the path, which is how it should be.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Agree, but even within a park a child's right/ability to run around in it doesn't mean that they can do so if it interferes with the right/ability of another park goer to enjoy the park as well. Over here we have a little saying, "Your right to do as you please ends where my nose begins."

(I have to break this up)

Surely that just means, ultimately, that no one can do anything, anywhere ever?

 

[gaz]

I'm in the States and am unfamiliar with your "road traffic act."

Well that explains it. The US are a joke when it comes to pedestrians. Jaywalking laws? Haha

 

[Tommi]

Well that explains it. The US are a joke when it comes to pedestrians. Jaywalking laws? Haha

Indeed. Given the way UK sequences the traffic lights adding jaywalking laws would make everyone a criminal.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

Then we has established that US law is different to UK law. We are talking Apples whilst you are talking Pears.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

So you saw her then. You say you had nowhere to go. That implies you couldn't stop. Thus you were travelling too fast or riding through an area you should not have been.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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

Children should not play in a carpark but in the UK the onus is still on the driver to ensure it is safe to enter a carpark.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

Once again we see the differences in US and UK laws. Pedestrians have priority on any pathway.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm in the States and am unfamiliar with your "road traffic act."

I think that answers many questions then.