Pedestrians

[tongskie01]

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.

to sum it all up, the ones that brings the danger should take responsibility for their actions.

 

[benb]

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If there were no cyclists, then pedestrians would be able to wander around erratically with pretty much zero risk.

It is the cyclists bringing the risk, and pedestrians are under no obligation to modify their behaviour to accommodate them.

Pedestrians have every right to zigzag around unpredictably as their fancy takes them. Good.

If you don't want to deal with that, and cycle at little more than walking pace, and stop if necessary, then stay out of the park.
And all of the above also applies to shared use paths not in parks.

 

[benb]

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.

+1

If the cyclist couldn't stop in time they were going to fast.

 

[tongskie01]

+1

If the cyclist couldn't stop in time they were going to fast.

+2

 

[Tommi]

to sum it all up, the ones that brings the danger should take responsibility for their actions.

Totally agreed. Unfortunately UK law seems very confused about it when it comes to traffic.

Anyway, I'd think pedestrians also qualify as "ones that brings the danger" when they do bring the danger. I don't agree on the pedestrian is the king of the road mentality, but I do my best to avoid any collisions regardless of who would be at fault.

 

[Dan B]

Anyway, I'd think pedestrians also qualify as "ones that brings the danger" when they do bring the danger

How dangerous is a pedestrian-pedestrian collision?

 

[rowan 46]

How dangerous is a pedestrian-pedestrian collision?

Depends on the pedestrian, My Aunt was hit by another pedestrian not looking where they were going. My aunt was too frail to get out the way and a broken hip ensued when she hit the floor. These sorts of accidents are unlikely but they do occasionally happen

 

[locker]

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.

What a stupid quote, everyone is responsible for their own safety, if some dick wants to go & pick flowers on a shared path & not bother to look out for anyone else whether other pedestrian or cyclist then they are being a danger to themselves & others
as I have said before pedestrians are not a different species they are human (I think)
BTW I`ve all ready said I was going too fast when I hit Big Mama but lets not dwell on it as my youtude channel will probably crash with the amount of hits it`s getting

Oh another point, if a council worker is walking & picking up rubbish is he counted as a pedestrian & according to you he can zig zig without a care in the world if he wants or is he liable for his own actions under the Heath & Safety at Work Act?
And as for "Pedestrians are under no obligation to check blind spots, indicate or anything else befroe they move around a path, which is how it should be" no it shouldn`t be, they made film about this called "Zombies from Hell" so when replying in future instead of typing "Pedestrian" replace it with "Zombie"

 

[tongskie01]

What a stupid quote, everyone is responsible for their own safety, if some dick wants to go & pick flowers on a shared path & not bother to look out for anyone else whether other pedestrian or cyclist then they are being a danger to themselves & others
as I have said before pedestrians are not a different species they are human (I think)
BTW I`ve all ready said I was going too fast when I hit Big Mama but lets not dwell on it as my youtude channel will probably crash with the amount of hits it`s getting

Oh another point, if a council worker is walking & picking up rubbish is he counted as a pedestrian & according to you he can zig zig without a care in the world if he wants or is he liable for his own actions under the Heath & Safety at Work Act?
yes he can do so. hes got priority.
And as for "Pedestrians are under no obligation to check blind spots, indicate or anything else befroe they move around a path, which is how it should be" no it shouldn`t be, they made film about this called "Zombies from Hell" so when replying in future instead of typing "Pedestrian" replace it with "Zombie"

you seem to be treating the shared path like a road where everyone has equal priority. shared path? pedestrian has got priority. pedestrian come in all sizes and abilities. children could be pedestrians. minors could be pedestrians. that's why they are priority because they're more vulnerable.

 

[rowan 46]

What a stupid quote, everyone is responsible for their own safety, if some dick wants to go & pick flowers on a shared path & not bother to look out for anyone else whether other pedestrian or cyclist then they are being a danger to themselves & others
as I have said before pedestrians are not a different species they are human (I think)
BTW I`ve all ready said I was going too fast when I hit Big Mama but lets not dwell on it as my youtude channel will probably crash with the amount of hits it`s getting

Oh another point, if a council worker is walking & picking up rubbish is he counted as a pedestrian & according to you he can zig zig without a care in the world if he wants or is he liable for his own actions under the Heath & Safety at Work Act?
And as for "Pedestrians are under no obligation to check blind spots, indicate or anything else befroe they move around a path, which is how it should be" no it shouldn`t be, they made film about this called "Zombies from Hell" so when replying in future instead of typing "Pedestrian" replace it with "Zombie"

I don't agree with calling pedestrians zombies I find it's disrespectful. By the way you didn't hit big mama you hit a lady you disrespectfully called big mama. And the fact you still use this derogatory term for her doesn't show much contrition from you. I'll try and address your other points. There is a difference in law between workers working on a path and ordinary pedestrians as you pointed out a worker is covered by the the health and safety at work and their primary duty is to be responsible for their own safety. A pedestrian isn't covered by this law because they are not at work. It would be wise to look out for cycles but they are not obliged to. You as a cyclist however are obliged to look out for pedestrians its a requirement to ride safely. speeding down a cyclepath expecting others to do your risk assessment for you isn't being safe it is reasonable to assume a pedestrian will use a shared path and you should ride accordingly. the fact is if you hit a pedestrian the law will blame you unless you can prove the pedestrian deliberately hurled themselves into your bike.

 

[benb]

What a stupid quote, everyone is responsible for their own safety, if some dick wants to go & pick flowers on a shared path & not bother to look out for anyone else whether other pedestrian or cyclist then they are being a danger to themselves & others
as I have said before pedestrians are not a different species they are human (I think)
BTW I`ve all ready said I was going too fast when I hit Big Mama but lets not dwell on it as my youtude channel will probably crash with the amount of hits it`s getting

Oh another point, if a council worker is walking & picking up rubbish is he counted as a pedestrian & according to you he can zig zig without a care in the world if he wants or is he liable for his own actions under the Heath & Safety at Work Act?
And as for "Pedestrians are under no obligation to check blind spots, indicate or anything else befroe they move around a path, which is how it should be" no it shouldn`t be, they made film about this called "Zombies from Hell" so when replying in future instead of typing "Pedestrian" replace it with "Zombie"

What a dickish post.

You still don't understand; pedestrians can wander around as unpredictably as they want on paths. Paths are for pedestrians. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there. Cyclists bring the risk, so cyclists have to behave in such a way as to minimise that risk - by cycling slowly and giving pedestrians enough room.

Pedestrians should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate pedestrians.

 

[mcr]

You still don't understand; pedestrians can wander around as unpredictably as they want on paths. Paths are for pedestrians. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there. Cyclists bring the risk, so cyclists have to behave in such a way as to minimise that risk - by cycling slowly and giving pedestrians enough room.

Pedestrians should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate pedestrians.

But this doesn't allow for the fact that many shared-use paths across parks have been put there (or legally reassigned) for cyclists to use in order to avoid a road, so are seen as primarily transit routes not places for them to potter. And they have as much right in law to be there as pedestrians. Aren't we in danger of lumping all paths in a public park in the same category? There are parks with free use of bikes on any path, others with specific paths only (eg Kensington Gardens) and others where strictly speaking they're banned altogether. And shouldn't one distinguish between paths designated as part of a local or national route, say by the local council, Sustrans or whatever, and a more general path network that anyone can use? And is it really a surprise to find some cyclists (and pedestrians) would like to see better lane discipline where such demarkation is provided? Ie one's behaviour as a cyclist should be able to depend on whether a path has marked lanes or not. I've seen it work in other European countries, where I should imagine that children are taught from a young age to keep to their side of the white line and where cycle paths tend to be de facto roads for cyclists to the benefit of all users. Here, shared use seems to equate to shared antagonism (and I write as a cyclist who hates being held up by oblivious pedestrians on something that's supposed to be a cycle path as much as a pedestrian who hates being hassled by cyclists on a path on which they are not allowed).

 

[locker]

What a dickish post.

You still don't understand; pedestrians can wander around as unpredictably as they want on paths. Paths are for pedestrians. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there. Cyclists bring the risk, so cyclists have to behave in such a way as to minimise that risk - by cycling slowly and giving pedestrians enough room.

Pedestrians should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate pedestrians.

make up your mind, one minute you`re taking about parks, paths where cyclists & zombies, sorry pedestrians, share, then now you`re talking about pedestrians only paths & there not many flowers to be picked on these around here in Bristol All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians, to be on a cycle path,lane,track if it`s shared . talk about dickish posting.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Behold! The reason everyone hates us. "All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians [on a shared path]". They don't, legally or morally. If you ride as if you do, you'll soon find yourself riding into people. Which is, no matter which way you cut it, your fault. Shared use paths are not roads (which is part of the reason I don't use them: for all their faults, roads at least have a reasonably rigid rule structure which most people obey most of the time): you need to ride expecting pedestrians to wander around unpredictably, for this is what pedestrians do.

 

[benb]

But this doesn't allow for the fact that many shared-use paths across parks have been put there (or legally reassigned) for cyclists to use in order to avoid a road, so are seen as primarily transit routes not places for them to potter. And they have as much right in law to be there as pedestrians. Aren't we in danger of lumping all paths in a public park in the same category? There are parks with free use of bikes on any path, others with specific paths only (eg Kensington Gardens) and others where strictly speaking they're banned altogether. And shouldn't one distinguish between paths designated as part of a local or national route, say by the local council, Sustrans or whatever, and a more general path network that anyone can use? And is it really a surprise to find some cyclists (and pedestrians) would like to see better lane discipline where such demarkation is provided? Ie one's behaviour as a cyclist should be able to depend on whether a path has marked lanes or not. I've seen it work in other European countries, where I should imagine that children are taught from a young age to keep to their side of the white line and where cycle paths tend to be de facto roads for cyclists to the benefit of all users. Here, shared use seems to equate to shared antagonism (and I write as a cyclist who hates being held up by oblivious pedestrians on something that's supposed to be a cycle path as much as a pedestrian who hates being hassled by cyclists on a path on which they are not allowed).

Just because the council has slapped a white line on it, doesn't stop it being a pavement. It's still a pavement, and pedestrians still have priority, and the right to suddenly stop and change direction without having to check for cyclists.

I'm tired of repeating myself, but: The cyclist brings the risk, so it's the cyclist's responsibility to cycle appropriately to minimise that risk.