Pedestrians

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes, there are and I think I will be taking advantage of that this summer. We have lots of people here that don't know how to drive. We have a family friend that immigrated from a country where people don't have to obey traffic laws. I fear for my life when I'm in his car and I have no doubt in my mind that he would run over a cyclist and not realize it. haha

OMG. Defensive cycling is definitely a good idea then. Please keep us posted with how you get on. Best of luck.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.



The same as a pedestrian landing on a small child. Minimal likelihood, unpredictable impact.

In the UK a park is a park. All cyclists should enter that park expecting there to be 2-feet-high hazards.

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.



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.



You're right. Cyclists should not feature on the list.




No. Doddery cyclists, toddlers learning to ride. Groups of walkers. Wheelchairs. Pushchairs. None of these are entirely predictable, and none of them should be.


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]

Actually last year on the Fourth of July we had a cyclist carrying a passenger on their bike hit and kill a pedestrian. They were on the causeway coming back from the fireworks on the beach. I don't know what their speed was, but given that the walkway section of the causeway which is where they were was/would have been full of pedestrians and/or other cyclists they wouldn't have been traveling too fast.

Sadly, there are more fatalities between cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists like to admit to.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Actually last year on the Fourth of July we had a cyclist carrying a passenger on their bike hit and kill a pedestrian. They were on the causeway coming back from the fireworks on the beach. I don't know what their speed was, but given that the walkway section of the causeway which is where they were was/would have been full of pedestrians and/or other cyclists they wouldn't have been traveling too fast.

Sadly, there are more fatalities between cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists like to admit to.

Keyword walkway
Looks like there is a higher %age of deaths linked to cycling in your country than the UK.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Agreed, in a perfect world all that you said would be true. And as I have said numerous times I do ride as slowly as needed when riding through the parks that I ride through, and on the MUP that I ride on. That however does not as some have said absolve pedestrians of behaving in a predictable manner. EVERYONE who uses a multi use/shared path as an obligation and responsibility to do so in a safe, reasonable and PREDICTABLE manner for the safety of EVERYONE.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Given that toddlers are the one's who are at the most danger of injury or worse they are the one's who need the most supervision and should not be alloed to "roam free in the park." And here in the States any parent who allowed their toddler to "roam free in the park." Would find themselves the center of a child abuse/neglect investigation.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

Exactly, which is why toddlers need more not less supervision.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Given that toddlers are the one's who are at the most danger of injury or worse they are the one's who need the most supervision and should not be alloed to "roam free in the park." And here in the States any parent who allowed their toddler to "roam free in the park." Would find themselves the center of a child abuse/neglect investigation.

Please don't confuse "roaming free" with "not under supervision".

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

Because she was walking faster than I was riding, and even if I had stopped she still would have hit my handlebars. Nothing I would have done would have changed the outcome.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

I have to disagree, everyone is responsible for their safety and to rely on some "anonymous stranger" to "protect" that safety is asinine at the very least. And to say that one group has no responsibility to any other group is also very asinine.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Because she was walking faster than I was riding, and even if I had stopped she still would have hit my handlebars. Nothing I would have done would have changed the outcome.

apart from reduce the force of the impact. It sounds like you should not have been cycling there at all if you couldn't take evasive action!

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

No, it just means (using as an example going to the park) that if Person A goes to the park their right to use and enjoy the park ends where Person B right to use and enjoy the park begins

Meaning that if I'm in the park with my GF and we're enjoying a quiet and romantic picnic, and that another person can't come over and decide that they're going to start playing baseball right where we have our picnic setup.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484458"]
Pedestrians are allowed to wander wherever they like on a shared path. Disagree all you like, but that's the fact. The onus is on the cyclist to not ride into anyone. That's the law, and that's the way it is.
[/quote]

As I have said that is asinine, and is something that I will never be able to agree with.

So you're saying that if a cyclist is traveling down a shared path at a safe speed and a pedestrian suddenly and without warning decides to turn around and starts running at the cyclist at a speed that is faster than the cyclists that the cyclist has to be able to "read" the pedestrians mind and know that they're going to do something that is completely and totally unpredictable and avoid said pedestrian? That is again asinine, if the pedestrian doesn't have enough concern for their own safety it shouldn't be the job/responsibility of the cyclist to be able predict the unpredictable actions of the pedestrian.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

Those laws are to protect EVERYONE, pedestrian, motorist, cyclist alike. If they didn't exist we'd have pedestrians crossing streets anywhere that they felt like crossing.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Great. No agreement can be reached. Does that mean the thread is over.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

I had people on both sides of me (and I wasn't the only one on a bike) I was going probably no faster than 5 or 6MPH basically coasting speed, with one foot unclipped for balance. If I had tried to turn either way I would have ended up hitting a number of people on either side, if I had attempted to stop the people walking and slowly parting in front of me would possibly have run into me because they would not have expected me to stop.

She saw me and had more room/time to maneuver in. That we hit is her fault not mine.