Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

Walkway was a poor choice of words on my part, it was probably more like a MUP/shared path. But as I've said here in Florida it is legal for a cyclist to operate on the sidewalk/pavement. And when they do they take on all the same rights, duties and responsibilities of a pedestrian.

Sadly there are and most of them are car v. bike not bike v. pedestrian. As sadly most motorists do not look out at all for cyclists.

 

[locker]

Actually, here in Florida when a cyclist operates their bike on a sidewalk they do it is the law:

F.S. 316.2065

[size="-1"](10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.[/size]

the things wrong with this statement from Rhythm Thief
Behold! The reason everyone hates us. Not everyone hates us
"All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians [on a shared path]". They don't, legally or morally. They do legally delete morally as its not used in the right context
If you ride as if you do, you'll soon find yourself riding into people. True Which is, no matter which way you cut it, your fault. true
Shared use paths are not roads True (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): Same as Cycle paths/tracks etc
you need to ride expecting pedestrians to wander around unpredictably, for this is what pedestrians do. as on roads you need to ride expecting motorists to act unpredictably for this what motorists do



So it seems the cyclist has a raw deal don`t you think?


all people have a duty to care & look out for one another whether you`re a motorist, cyclist, pedestrian, at work, at home, on the road or on a SHARED cycle way/path

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

Given that the usage of "roaming free" it sure seems to imply that they're just free to roam wherever they want without supervision. Maybe a better/clear term needs to be used.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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!

She is the one who was traveling at the faster rate of speed. I was in the clear and than I was engulfed in people. And the gal walked right into me. If I could have avoided it, I would have. As I said she was going faster than I was I'd say probably twice as fast as I was I traveling. So even if I came to a stop she still would have collided with me and there really wouldn't have been any reduction in the force of the impact.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484529"]
Come off it, that statement imo is not complete. ''Where they feel like it'' The vast majority of peds in this country that i've seen apply common sense when crossing the road and they should be allowed to. Don't you think with jaywalking laws you are suppressing ped freedom and giving into the idea of cars for the road everyone else can do one?
[/quote]

No, I do not, as there are a number of roads where the speed is to high for pedestrians to safely cross. There was actually a case just recently where a mother was charged with vehicular homicide in the death of her child and she and her children were walking across the road. At a section of road that didn't have either a crosswalk or cross light or even traffic light IIRC

And actually I live on a road that can be dangerous to cross, there are two lights with crosswalks about a half a mile or so apart. I'd called the traffic engineer office to see if the lights could be timed so as to make it safe(r) for pedestrians to cross the road, and I was told that to do so would create to much of a burden on motorists trying to get from one point to another.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484531"]
If you'd stopped the impact would have been less, if at all.
[/quote]

If I had stopped she still would have walked into me. And I did my best to avoid the collision but if I'd veered to either side I would have hit multiple people. So the choice was to keep going at the slow speed that I was going at, or to veer to one side or the other and hit more than one person. So in this case I choose to continue forward at my slow pace and allow her to hit me.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

By the sound of it there should have been no cycling in that area. A responsible cyclist knows where and when to cycle.

That may be so, but it was as I believe that I've said the cop who directed me to continue on the route that I was on. Given that there was a cop directing traffic shouldn't he have directed me not to take that route?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484534"]
A competent cyclist poses a similar risk to a pedestrian as another pedestrian -minimal.

Stats on pedestrian deaths by cyclist then? And the details of the conflict? You obviously know.....
[/quote]

I know about that one because it happened locally and it made the local news, I don't know about all of the ones that happen in other parts of the country.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

What I gather from this thread is that in UK pedestrians have absolute right to be on any (public) path or road, be it footpath, cycle path, car park, road, motorway, etc. Also cyclists have the right to ride on shared paths (among other things.)

On shared paths cyclists have a responsibility towards pedestrians who have priority. Based on this thread pedestrians themselves have no responsibilities when it comes to other road users, that can't be right? So when an adult pedestrian decides to cross the path totally oblivious to others on the path and knocks over a small child learning to ride or an elderly person with not the fastest reflexes on bicycle, neither of which are bringing any actual danger to the pedestrian, they are to blame instead?

And it makes no difference whatsoever whether it's shared path, cycle path or road?

On vaguely related note, pedestrians have exclusive use of footpaths, motor vehicles have exclusive use of motorways, do bicycles have exclusive use of anything?

It would seem not.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484538"]
No, you're still wrong. Pedestrians, on a path in a park, are perfectly entitled to wander around, jostle each other, stop, start, move to either side....

It's the incompetent cyclist who is the problem. Cyclists on paths should always defer to everyone else. Unquestionably.



[/quote]

Then the best thing to do is to ban cyclists totally from all parks.

 

[rowan 46]

I think we have a bit of a cultural impasse here, I am not an expert in us law but from what I do know it is slightly different The US laws are founded on personal liberty and consequently personal responsibility. Here laws are based upon state allowed rights it comes from having had an absolute monarchy and is one of the reasons why the government has so much trouble with human rights legislation from europe. There is no duty on pedestrians to watch where they are going while they are on the footpath. all shared paths are footpaths with cyclists having the right to travel on it. The obligation is on cyclists to look out for pedestrians the pedestrians are not obliged to look for cyclists. it sounds crazy but its true. from a personal point of view as a pedestrian using a shared path I look for cyclists but I am not obliged to. However as a cyclist on a path I am required to avoid pedestrians. Over here if you hit a pedestrian you have to prove that it was a 100% the pedestrians fault and there was nothing any reasonable person could have done to avoid it, I have never heard of a case where a cyclist has been able to prove this. (edit I said right to travel on a footpath I should have said permission)

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484539"]
Don't be ridiculous.


[/quote]

I'm not being ridiculous, parents have found themselves the center of a child abuse/neglect investigation for less. Such as there have been cases of a parent(s) leaving their minor children alone in the house and running to the store on the corner for a six pack or a pack of smokes and ended up being investigated for child abuse/neglect.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484541"]
As a cyclist, you have a responsibility not to ride into anyone else.
[/quote]

That is true, but that is a two-way street. Pedestrians also have a responsibility to not endanger anyone else's safety.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I think we have a bit of a cultural impasse here, I am not an expert in US law but from what I do know it is slightly different The US laws are founded on personal liberty and consequently personal responsibility. Here laws are based upon state allowed rights it comes from having had an absolute monarchy and is one of the reasons why the government has so much trouble with human rights legislation from Europe. There is no duty on pedestrians to watch where they are going while they are on the footpath. all shared paths are footpaths with cyclists having the right to travel on it. The obligation is on cyclists to look out for pedestrians the pedestrians are not obliged to look for cyclists. it sounds crazy but its true. from a personal point of view as a pedestrian using a shared path I look for cyclists but I am not obliged to. However as a cyclist on a path I am required to avoid pedestrians. Over here if you hit a pedestrian you have to prove that it was a 100% the pedestrians fault and there was nothing any reasonable person could have done to avoid it, I have never heard of a case where a cyclist has been able to prove this. (edit I said right to travel on a footpath I should have said permission)

I agree, it is probably a cultural difference/impasse. As you said over here laws are passed so as not to interfere the individual's civil liberties. It doesn't just sound crazy, I would have to say that it is crazy. If one one group has a higher priority all other users than it isn't a "shared" use path. As, as I said before (at least to me) shared means that EVERYONE has an EQUAL right to use the path. And everyone looks out for themselves so that they don't interfere with anyone else. That means pedestrians as well as cyclists, as well as skaters. Everyone has a responsibility to use the path safely responsibly and predictably.

And that is part of the argument that the state of Illinois used in a court case in which it was ruled that the state has no obligation to make it's roads safe for cyclists to use, as they are not the intended users. So in the state of Illinois, if a cyclist gets injured on a public street it's their tough luck and they have no recourse in going after the city, county or state for their injuries/damages.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Actually, here in Florida when a cyclist operates their bike on a sidewalk they do it is the law:

F.S. 316.2065

[size="-1"](10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.[/size]

I don't see why that's relevant to the point I was making in the post you quoted.