# Pedestrians



## benb (29 Jul 2011)

So for those who remember our friend who ran down a pedestrian on a path, I thought I'd show him how it should be done.
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYiy0d8Z5S4[/media]


----------



## gaz (29 Jul 2011)

How long till someone mentions that you didn't use a bell and that you cycled on the pedestrian side.


----------



## Jezston (29 Jul 2011)

You didn't use a bell and you cycled on the pedestrian side, you waahhhnkkarrrrrrrrr!


----------



## monkeypony (29 Jul 2011)

That looks like a really annoying way to travel.

For the speed you were travelling at you may as well have got off and pushed!


----------



## potsy (29 Jul 2011)

Your electric motor's much quieter than the other guys too


----------



## gaz (29 Jul 2011)

Jezston said:


> You didn't use a bell and you cycled on the pedestrian side, you waahhhnkkarrrrrrrrr!



 Knew it wouldn't be long.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Jul 2011)

Excellent.

My old bike had brakes that screamed like a banshee even at low speeds. Scared the bejesus out of many a pedestrian, but nothing I did seemed to stop it.


----------



## noelmg (29 Jul 2011)

Part of my journey is along a combined user path that gets very narrow. Sods law you always get somebody with earphones in that doesn't hear your bell and just carries on oblivious.

Had somebody the other day park up in front of me on the cycle path, passenger looked me in the eye, before opening his door to block my path at the last second as I was about to pass him. 

I'd like to use the road but in that part the traffic is horrendous with people cutting into side roads all the way down without looking, the path is a lot safer there.


----------



## Mad at urage (29 Jul 2011)

I distinctly heard a bell! You were obviously using it to intimidate those poor kids  and you sped up again far too quickly, must have given them a real shock  .


----------



## tongskie01 (29 Jul 2011)

pedestrians not wearing helmets. dangerous.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jul 2011)

You waaaaannnnnkkkkkkkkerrrrrr  

Perfect cycling. I could even hear the smile in the voice when you spoke to the first person


----------



## DrSquirrel (29 Jul 2011)

Too near the woman at 0:26 and squeezing up the middle when there was peds on both sides...

Better to try and time it so you don't have to pass both groups at the same time.


----------



## PBancroft (29 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> pedestrians not wearing helmets. dangerous.



They don't even pay road tax. Wossat? Pavement you say? Council tax? What about those bloody kids - they don't pay any Council Tax. When they pay for the paths they can use them. Acting like they own the cycle lane, I bet they've not even done the Highway Code yet in school.






More seriously benb, well done.


----------



## Jezston (29 Jul 2011)

And remember, the roads are paid for by the council tax of LOCAL people.

You should not be allowed to use the roads in the towns you don't live in.


----------



## benb (29 Jul 2011)

monkeypony said:


> That looks like a really annoying way to travel.
> 
> For the speed you were travelling at you may as well have got off and pushed!



It's only 200m or so, and still quicker than taking the road around. And in fact I hardly ever see it this busy.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> How long till someone mentions that you didn't use a bell and that you cycled on the pedestrian side.



What about the pedestrians that were walking on the bicycle side? Shouldn't someone say something to them? And shouldn't the parents have better control of their little ones?

When I'm riding through the parks on my usual ride, regardless of the side of the sidewalk that people or little kids (not to imply that kids aren't people) are on, I always slow down so as not to be a danger to them. Even if needed going into the grass to pass them.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> What about the pedestrians that were walking on the bicycle side? Shouldn't someone say something to them? And shouldn't the parents have better control of their little ones?



Surprisingly, they're walking there perfectly legally. They're allowed - this is a no jaywalking country.

I used to be horrified when I first came here, but now I realise that the UK is more enlightened. Jaywalking laws and pedestrian restrictions are the work of STAN.


----------



## PBancroft (30 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484163"]
They should get rid of the stupid white lines and let everyone share the path.
[/quote]

+1


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> How long till someone mentions that you didn't use a bell and that you cycled on the pedestrian side.



Wimp - this is what an AirZound is for.

Scare the child witless, send them running back to their paents in tears and know that the traumatic fear of bicycles will keep them out of the way of cyclists in future


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> What about the pedestrians that were walking on the bicycle side? Shouldn't someone say something to them? And shouldn't the parents have better control of their little ones?



No, it's a path through a park. I don't want to live in a world where kids can't wander around as they like in a park.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2011)

When Gosport was trying to build the Light Rapid Transit scheme the planned route was down and excellent cycle route. THe press and LRT peole insisted it was a disused rail route, or a cycle path

We enlisted everyone to protect the facility we started campaigning about a "linear park", a phrase borrowed from the States

It was a successful campaign, but opened my eyes.

I think routes like this are exactly that "Linear parks" and used by dog walkers, walkers, parents children and are all the better for it.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (31 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Surprisingly, they're walking there perfectly legally. They're allowed - this is a no jaywalking country.
> 
> I used to be horrified when I first came here, but now I realise that the UK is more enlightened. Jaywalking laws and pedestrian restrictions are the work of STAN.




What about the parents not having a tighter "leash" on their little ones? If they get hit by some cyclist isn't more their parents fault for not having more control over their little ones?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> No, it's a path through a park. I don't want to live in a world where kids can't wander around as they like in a park.



I agree that kids should be able to "wander" as they like in a park, but a bike path/multi use path running through the park isn't really someplace where a child should be "wandering" about. And in a case where someone's little one's are just "wandering" about wherever they like and if that happens to be on the bike path/MUP than it's the parents fault as much as it is the cyclists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I agree that kids should be able to "wander" as they like in a park, but a bike path/multi use path running through the park isn't really someplace where a child should be "wandering" about. And in a case where someone's little one's are just "wandering" about wherever they like and if that happens to be on the bike path/MUP than it's the parents fault as much as it is the cyclists.



Only if you want kids to be treated in the same way that dogs need to be.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Parents should have a tag on small children. I would want to make sure my boys don't have collisions with moving cycles! We have a duty of care IMO to be mindful of pedestrians but they have to show common sense also. There are places where children should be left to roam and there are places where mum and dad should keep a short leash.

Stroppy teenagers sat in groups on cycles paths is a different issue all together


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I agree that kids should be able to "wander" as they like in a park, but a bike path/multi use path running through the park isn't really someplace where a child should be "wandering" about. And in a case where someone's little one's are just "wandering" about wherever they like and if that happens to be on the bike path/MUP than it's the parents fault as much as it is the cyclists.



No, it's cyclists' responsibility to avoid pedestrians on paths, no matter how young they are or how erratically they are behaving.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Stroppy teenagers sat in groups on cycles paths is a different issue all together



Are we allowed to plough into them then?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are we allowed to plough into them then?



I've done the polite thing and a bit of bag kicking


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> No, it's cyclists' responsibility to avoid pedestrians on paths, no matter how young they are or how erratically they are behaving.



It has to be both IMO. You can't just let kids run all over the place when they may be at risk. I agree cyclists must be extra vigilant but you can't lay it all with the cyclist. They wouldn't let their children run all over the main roads ................ or would they?


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Parents should have a tag on small children. I would want to make sure my boys don't have collisions with moving cycles! We have a duty of care IMO to be mindful of pedestrians but they have to show common sense also. *There are places where children should be left to roam and there are places where mum and dad should keep a short leash.*
> 
> Stroppy teenagers sat in groups on cycles paths is a different issue all together



i.e Able to roam if they're not in your way, kept on a short leash when they are in your way.


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> It has to be both IMO. You can't just let kids run all over the place when they may be at risk. I agree cyclists must be extra vigilant but you can't lay it all with the cyclist. They wouldn't let their children run all over the main roads ................ or would they?



It's not a main road, it's a path. Pedestrians have absolute priority, and that's it.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> It's not a main road, it's a path. Pedestrians have absolute priority, and that's it.



So parents have no responsibility for their children? Very realistic I have to say. When there is a collision will we all fall on fluffy cushions?


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> So parents have no responsibility for their children? Very realistic I have to say. When there is a collision will we all fall on fluffy cushions?



If you cycle properly and carefully there won't be a collision.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Young children don't have a lot of sense of awareness so have to be looked after by parents. How are we supposed to know if a child is going to run out in front of us. Perhaps we should slow down at the sight of every pedestrian so they can wander about willynilly as they please? Ironically when the child is old enough to wander alone they won't have to be aware of the hazards because we will do it for them!


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484182"]
Of course they do. Cyclists are still obliged to give way at all times while riding through parks.
[/quote]

I'm not disputing we give way or not, that's a given. I'm disputing a lack of parental control and parents letting child run all over the place. How can we second guess their actions and what if it is too close for us to avoid or stop? The hazard is to cyclists as well as pedestrians


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> If you cycle properly and carefully there won't be a collision.




You are a wind up I think. It's unpredictable when children run out no matter how safely we are cycling. What a silly comment to make and one I'd take as an insult. 'Cycling properly'


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484186"]
It's a park.


Do you have a different view of toddlers on the same path on bikes? They're just as unpredictable, but given your suggested priorities of use have just as much right to ride their as you do.
[/quote]

And if they are being monitored correctly by parents they will be in one lane or another and easily identifiable and so avoidable

I'd love to stay and chew the fat with the fluffy brigade but I'm of out to do a bit of 'safe' cycling


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You are a wind up I think. It's unpredictable when children run out no matter how safely we are cycling. What a silly comment to make and one I'd take as an insult. 'Cycling properly'



If you cycle at an appropriate speed, and give enough room (going onto the grass if necessary) there is no way for a collision to occur.
No, I'm not on a wind-up.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> And *if* they are being monitored correctly by parents they will be in one lane or another and easily identifiable and so avoidable
> 
> I'd love to stay and chew the fat with the fluffy brigade but I'm of out to do a bit of 'safe' cycling




and *if* they're not?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Young children don't have a lot of sense of awareness so have to be looked after by parents. How are we supposed to know if a child is going to run out in front of us. Perhaps we should slow down at the sight of every pedestrian so they can wander about willynilly as they please? Ironically when the child is old enough to wander alone they won't have to be aware of the hazards because we will do it for them!



If a child is kept on reigns them will also fail to learn hazard awareness so your point in moot. As for slowing down when you see a pedestrian - yes this what you do on a shared path!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> If you cycle at an appropriate speed, and give enough room (going onto the grass if necessary) there is no way for a collision to occur.
> No, I'm not on a wind-up.



Beb I think Johnny is on a wind up mission here!


----------



## markharry66 (31 Jul 2011)

Its the same as driving at 30 in a school zone match to speed to the environment you are choosing to cycle in if you dont like find an alternative route


----------



## mcr (31 Jul 2011)

I've never liked all these shared-use paths, whether with marked separation or not - they just transfer the car-driver/cyclist antagonism to one of cyclist/pedestrian. They'll only work if they're legally made proper cycle paths on which pedestrians may walk 'permissively' - ie at their own risk. After all, with the network of public footpaths and pavements in this country, pedestrians are the best served of all users (and I write as a keen walker as well as cyclist). If you've ever accidentally walked on marked cycle lanes in Germany without looking you'll know it - if they can work there...


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> If you cycle at an appropriate speed, and give enough room (going onto the grass if necessary) there is no way for a collision to occur.
> No, I'm not on a wind-up.



Oh if only the old crystal ball worked






Are you sure you are not on the wind up?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If a child is kept on reigns them will also fail to learn hazard awareness so your point in moot. As for slowing down when you see a pedestrian - yes this what you do on a shared path!



'reigns' is not intended as a literal thing so it is a valid point. You learn hazard awareness from parents because children seldom see the obvious dangers. Whether that is from a word of warning or tug back makes no odds. The control principle stands IMO


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Oh if only the old crystal ball worked
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So I take it you run into kids all the time then?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

mcr said:


> I've never liked all these shared-use paths, whether with marked separation or not - they just transfer the car-driver/cyclist antagonism to one of cyclist/pedestrian. They'll only work if they're legally made proper cycle paths on which pedestrians may walk 'permissively' - ie at their own risk. After all, with the network of public footpaths and pavements in this country, pedestrians are the best served of all users (and I write as a keen walker as well as cyclist). If you've ever accidentally walked on marked cycle lanes in Germany without looking you'll know it - if they can work there...



+1

France are pretty strict on it also


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484194"]
...and we as cyclists must ride according to the conditions of where we are riding. 

The reason that young children are allowed to roam as they please around a park is (as Alexandra the Meerkat would say) simples.

It's a park, where peds have ultimate priority. Young motheres can let their young brood run free for them to explore and learn new lands. This is ultimately how we learn and evolve. Not to be put on some sort of lease just so cyclists can ride through.

And no, we should not slow down at the sight of every pedestrian - only those who potentially we come into conflict with. Please don't confuse the two.

And when the child is old enough to wander alone, they will be aware of the hazards involved. Culture will dictate this because we know how to behave in a park and how to behave when on a main road. Cyclists and peds alike.
[/quote]


Isn't it funny how the point is often missed? I never said we cannot share paths, though I don't like them. I said parents should exercise control as well as us. It cannot just be down to us because a child on the ruin is too unpredictable. 
Yes we also know how to behave in a park. I don't quite see what you are getting at there? Should I get off my bike and play on the swings or something? The play area is the park itself. The path ways in and around the park are there to get us all safely too and from or through the park.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> 'reigns' is not intended as a literal thing so it is a valid point. You learn hazard awareness from parents because children seldom see the obvious dangers. Whether that is from a word of warning or tug back makes no odds. The control principle stands IMO


Children learn more from mistakes than anything else. You get hurt, you don't want to get hurt so you don't repeat that mistake (too often)


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So I take it you run into kids all the time then?



What kind of a comment is that? wtf!
I started by saying that parents need to be responsible for a childs safety as much as cyclists do. At what point did I become some sort of hit and run cyclist?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Beb I think Johnny is on a wind up mission here!



Silly


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Isn't it funny how the point is often missed? I never said we cannot share paths, though I don't like them. I said parents should exercise control as well as us. It cannot just be down to us because a child on the ruin is too unpredictable.
> Yes we also know how to behave in a park. I don't quite see what you are getting at there? Should I get off my bike and play on the swings or something? The play area is the park itself. The path ways in and around the park are there to get us all safely too and from or through the park.



have you got a warning device like cycle bell? maybe u should use one. and by the way, learn to anticipate, hazard perception perhaps....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> What kind of a comment is that? wtf!
> I started by saying that parents need to be responsible for a childs safety as much as cyclists do. At what point did I become some sort of hit and run cyclist?


Well if children are running ammock as you describe and you feel they need to be reigned in then surely you have hit some of them?


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well if children are running ammock as you describe and you feel they need to be reigned in then surely you have hit some of them?


if he never hit anybody, he must be safe cyclist then. so what is he complaining about?


----------



## Dan B (31 Jul 2011)

How often do you run into children when you're walking? I see no reason that it should be any more common just because you're riding a bike

(Minor point of spelling: "reining in" is what you do with an errant child (or, I assume, horse). "rei*g*ning in" is what the Queen does with reference to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484191"]
No. Children learning to ride are unpredictable and wobbly. As I've already said, if you want to ride somewhere where children won't impede you, stay on the road.
[/quote]
no. he wants to time trial around the park.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> no. he wants to time trial around the park.


That's what I read from him as well!


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> have you got a warning device like cycle bell? maybe u should use one. and by the way, learn to anticipate, hazard perception perhaps....



Since when did I say I do not anticipate hazards? I merely stated that children are unpredictable and parents should take the lead. 
PS I would suggest that even at the lowest of speeds a grown adult on a cycle would come off better

I'm having a Charlie Brown moment!


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

I can't believe so many posters don't actually listen to a point of view!!!!!!

Talk about insular and cliquey 

I never said I wanted to TT the park although the dreamers can make up whatever you want to put across your point of view, simple as they are


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484214"]
Charlie Brown never wore reins.
[/quote]

And you can prove this


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484216"]
What you've got isn't a clique, but several people disagreeing with you. 

A park is a park. It's multi-use. You can't restrict the use to one significant group hugely, just so that they don't get in your way.
[/quote]
Very eloquently put.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484216"]
What you've got isn't a clique, but several people disagreeing with you. 

A park is a park. It's multi-use. You can't restrict the use to one significant group hugely, just so that they don't get in your way.
[/quote]

And again you have misunderstood. I never said that I wanted them out of my way and yet again some has made something up.

I merely stated that a child's awareness, or lack of it, stems from interaction with adults. We look out for children as it is our responsibility as parents. Likewise we look out for children running across our path on shared footpaths. This is one of the reasons I use roads often. Yes I take care around pedestrians and horse riders etc 

How many times would you like me to post that I do take care before you actually listen?

On another note, you can disagree as much as you like. I'm sure I give as much of a toss about it as you do. Still I listen to other posters and yet you seem to find that difficult?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well if children are running ammock as you describe and you feel they need to be reigned in then surely you have hit some of them?



Again people making things up. ASSUMPTION lol

Oh and just to clarify, I have never, ever collided with anyone whilst on my bike I am happy to say. Long may it continue that way


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Very eloquently put.



+2


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> +2



LMAO clueless lol


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> And again you have misunderstood. I never said that I wanted them out of my way and yet again some has made something up.
> 
> I merely stated that a child's awareness, or lack of it, stems from interaction with adults. We look out for children as it is our responsibility as parents. Likewise we look out for children running across our path on shared footpaths. This is one of the reasons I use roads often. Yes I take care around pedestrians and horse riders etc
> 
> ...


The point you are missing is that children should not have to be on the look out for that type of danger in a park.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The point you are missing is that children should not have to be on the look out for that type of danger in a park.



An adult on a cycle at 2 miles an hour is a danger to a child. Do you get off your bike and walk by them? Give over!


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Again people making things up. ASSUMPTION lol
> 
> Oh and just to clarify, I have never, ever collided with anyone whilst on my bike I am happy to say. Long may it continue that way



i do think you have been well protected when u were a child. children are children they're all over the place. maybe u should have one and see what its like walking in the park with them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Again people making things up. ASSUMPTION lol
> 
> Oh and just to clarify, I have never, ever collided with anyone whilst on my bike I am happy to say. Long may it continue that way


So what is your problem? Clearly the parks are safe.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484222"]
If you always give way to children, accept that they'll get in your way and don't complain about it, then that's fine.
[/quote]

What a stupid comment. It's a chat site. And who said I was complaining about children being in the park. Oh dear it doesn't get any better


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> An adult on a cycle at 2 miles an hour is a danger to a child. Do you get off your bike and walk by them? Give over!



i would. and if there are too many children and not safe to cycle then i would get another route.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> i do think you have been well protected when u were a child. children are children they're all over the place. maybe u should have one and see what its like walking in the park with them.



How very condescending and mature. Crap crystal ball by the way I have 2 and when they were small I made sure they were safe. Kids don't bother about the dangers around they just want to have fun, and why not? It is our job to keep them safe. Perhaps you shouldn't let your children get in the way of others just because they can.

I was always taught it was a matter of manners


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484230"]
No he isn't.
[/quote]

12 stone adult vs 2 stone child. No you're exactly right!!!! Put that question to a Health and Safety bod and see what they come up with. You can manage the risk, doesn't mean to say you have taken it away. Now not allowing cycling around small children is taking away the risk but whilst there is a risk of collision there is always a hazard


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484232"]
You are complaining about children having free rein on a path in a park.
[/quote]

Like I said, you make silly comments


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Like I said, you make silly comments


OMG What a :troll:


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> How very condescending and mature. Crap crystal ball by the way I have 2 and when they were small I made sure they were safe.* Kids don't bother about the dangers around they just want to have fun, and why not*?* It is our job* *to keep them safe*. Perhaps you shouldn't let your children get in the way of others just because they can.
> 
> I was always taught it was a matter of manners



youre in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle. which might hit kids which are unpredictably running around the park its your job to keep them safe too.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OMG What a :troll:



Now then little man. You are trying to make this a personal thing. I marely called a comment silly. You are trying to insult. Tut tut small man syndrome


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

hahahahahahaahahahahaha

Fancy someone having a complaint on a discussion site. That should never be allowed

By the way pointing out what I think should be is not generally a complaint about something else. Merely a personal observation.

Someone else taking things a little personal


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Now then little man. You are trying to make this a personal thing. I marely called a comment silly. You are trying to insult. Tut tut small man syndrome


6' & 16stn is very small I guess. BTW I am stating the fact as I see it that you are a :troll:


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484239"]
You are complaining about children having free rein on a path in a park.

-that's a fact.
[/quote]

what he's trying to say is , parents should stop cyclist hitting children running around the park.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Oooooh I'm so frightened of the big tall boy. LMFAO. Grow up. I bet you use your size to good advantage


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> what he's trying to say is , parents should stop cyclist hitting children running around the park.



Half way there! Stop children running in front of cyclists and yes stopping cyclists racing around the place. Still, it's a two way street


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Oooooh I'm so frightened of the big tall boy. LMFAO. Grow up. I bet you use your size to good advantage



should we just get to the point? what's your point?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Oooooh I'm so frightened of the big tall boy. LMFAO. Grow up. I bet you use your size to good advantage


My you are upset. Is it because you have been figured out?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> My you are upset. Is it because you have been figured out?



You are a bit of a full weight





Found out for what? Again, grow up


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1484247"]
You're complaining about children getting in your way in a park, then when several people point out some thinks to you, you claim to be misunderstood. But you're not being misunderstood, you're just complaining about children being allowed free rein in a park.
[/quote]

tomato-tomato

Potato-potato!!!!!

You take my meaning however you wish. The conversation has come to an end I think. We are never going to agree and the big fella from the south west appears to want to fight.

It's been a pleasure


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Half way there! Stop children running in front of cyclists and yes stopping cyclists racing around the place. Still, it's a two way street



are we actually referring to children or dogs? maybe u should complain about dogs too. but hey i only see dogs on rein and not kids. u cant put a leash on a 5 year old. did you?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You are a bit of a full weight
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Found out that you are :troll:ing. I'm not the one complaining about children playing in the park being children. It is you Sir who needs to grow up.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> are we actually referring to children or dogs? maybe u should complain about dogs too. but hey i only see dogs on rein and not kids. u cant put a leash on a 5 year old. did you?



Very mature. I have already explained about taking the use of the word 'reign' to mean control rather than restrain.

You and you're two mates are starting to frighten me now





Would you consider yourself middle class btw?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Found out that you are :troll:ing. I'm not the one complaining about children playing in the park being children. It is you Sir who needs to grow up.



I like you. You are funny and quite entertaining. Ever thought of doing stand up?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> I like you. You are funny and quite entertaining. Ever thought of doing stand up?


Have you considered standing as an MP. With your world view I am sure some partys would be interested in you. Anyway you are in a minority of one so that might tell you something?


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Have you considered standing as an MP. With your world view I am sure some partys would be interested in you. Anyway you are in a minority of one so that might tell you something?



It does. It tells me I'm either standing up against the bullies or I'm the only one that knows what he's on about


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Very mature. I have already explained about taking the use of the word 'reign' to mean control rather than restrain.
> 
> You and you're two mates are starting to frighten me now
> 
> ...



restrain to some extent is control. you sir doesn't live in the real world. reality is the park is where kids become very excited and will be out of control at some point. maybe you never experienced childhood.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

I suppose in my unrealistic way I safeguarded my children from unnecessary accidents. Funny thing is it seemed real at the time!!


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

I can't quite believe we're having this argument. Pedestrians, including kids, have absolute priority on footpaths, regardless of whether the council has painted a white line down the middle and designated it shared use.

Kids have every right to run around a park as erratically and unpredictably as they want - there is no reason for them to be "reined in" by their parents (unless there is a pond or something). Cyclists simply shouldn't figure on the list of hazards in a park. *If you're cycling in a park in such a way that you are a hazard, then you're doing it wrong*.

As a cyclist, it is my responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not the other way around. If I cycle carefully and at an appropriate speed, the chance of a collision is virtually nil.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> It does. It tells me I'm either standing up against the bullies or I'm the only one that knows what he's on about


You honestly believe that children should not be allowed to play freely in parks? If that is the case you are one sick man.


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> It does. It tells me I'm either standing up against the bullies or I'm the only one that knows what he's on about



Or maybe you're flat wrong.


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> I suppose in my unrealistic way I safeguarded my children from* unnecessary accidents*. Funny thing is it seemed real at the time!!



so there are necessary accidents too? i'm really worried.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

You boys are so scary. AF you have the reasoning of a child but at least I can see where you are coming from.

BB yoou don't understand the meaning of the word 'hazard' Do you know that all cars are considered to be hazards whether driven safely or not. You shouldn't argue with limited understanding


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> so there are necessary accidents too? i'm really worried.



So am I. Can you identify them please so I can keep an eye out for them?


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You boys are so scary. AF you have the reasoning of a child but at least I can see where you are coming from.
> 
> BB yoou don't understand the meaning of the word 'hazard' Do you know that all cars are considered to be hazards whether driven safely or not. You shouldn't argue with limited understanding



so are bikes too. and so as pedestrians including children.


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You boys are so scary. AF you have the reasoning of a child but at least I can see where you are coming from.
> 
> BB yoou don't understand the meaning of the word 'hazard' Do you know that all cars are considered to be hazards whether driven safely or not. You shouldn't argue with limited understanding



I understand the meaning of the word hazard perfectly.
Cycles can be hazards in some situations, but should not be a hazard in a park!

*If you're cycling in a park in such a way that you are a hazard, then you're doing it wrong*.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You boys are so scary. AF you have the reasoning of a child but at least I can see where you are coming from.
> 
> BB yoou don't understand the meaning of the word 'hazard' Do you know that all cars are considered to be hazards whether driven safely or not. You shouldn't argue with limited understanding


JB. I now have reason to believe you are a complete idiot. I feel sorry for you and your children.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> I understand the meaning of the word hazard perfectly.
> Cycles can be hazards in some situations, but should not be a hazard in a park!
> 
> *If you're cycling in a park in such a way that you are a hazard, then you're doing it wrong*.



wrong!!! not even a good try


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> JB. I now have reason to believe you are a complete idiot. I feel sorry for you and your children.



No need to feel sorry for me Big Fella. I don't live in Cwmbach


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> So am I. Can you identify them please so I can keep an eye out for them?




i'm worried to take my kids to the park now. you might hit one of them and class it as necessary accident.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

Our JB is clearly a :troll: and I for one will no longer play along. Suggest that others do the same.


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> wrong!!! not even a good try



The more you cycle the more likely there will be an accident. This is why people that drive cars more frequently pay more insurance. It's a probability thing and nothing to do with whether you are doing it 'wrong' or not.


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Our JB is clearly a :troll: and I for one will no longer play along. Suggest that others do the same.



+1 cycle chat you later..


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Our JB is clearly a :troll: and I for one will no longer play along. Suggest that others do the same.



Bye big fella. Sleep tight xx


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> i'm worried to take my kids to the park now. you might hit one of them and class it as necessary accident.



I suspect you let them wander wherever they like so they should be aware of all the hazards around them. I will of course navigate safely around them


----------



## tongskie01 (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> I suspect you let them wander wherever they like so they should be aware of all the hazards around them. I will of course navigate safely around them



thanks. good nyte.


----------



## benb (31 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> wrong!!! not even a good try



Drivel. Unless someone hides behind a bush and hurls themselves into your path, a cyclist-pedestrian collision should never happen on a path in a park.
If it does, the cyclist was cycling too fast, or not giving enough room, or didn't make the pedestrian aware of his presence, or all three.

You are a pathetic troll and are now the only person to be put on my ignore list - not even Lee has managed that!


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> Drivel. Unless someone hides behind a bush and hurls themselves into your path, a cyclist-pedestrian collision should never happen on a path in a park.
> If it does, the cyclist was cycling too fast, or not giving enough room, or didn't make the pedestrian aware of his presence, or all three.
> 
> You are a pathetic troll and are now the only person to be put on my ignore list - not even Lee has managed that!



And you dismiss what you do not know or understand. I shall add you to the 'grossly unintelligent' list and ignore you accordingly.

btw 'troll' is a great word and thank you


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> Drivel. Unless someone hides behind a bush and hurls themselves into your path, a cyclist-pedestrian collision should never happen on a path in a park.
> If it does, the cyclist was cycling too fast, or not giving enough room, or didn't make the pedestrian aware of his presence, or all three.
> 
> You are a pathetic troll and are now the only person to be put on my ignore list - not even Lee has managed that!


Just added him to mine as well


----------



## JonnyBlade (31 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Just added him to mine as well



I thought you were ignoring me? ....................... oh you are now LMFAO hahahahahahahaahaha


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484171"]
I couldn't disagree more. 



[/quote]

You _*WANT*_ children wandering about where they can get hit and hurt possibly looking at a serious injury or even death? Is that what you are saying?

The only real MUP that we have where I live, the "worse" that I have seen is people allowing their dogs to roam free on it. However when I am riding through the parks in the downtown area the parents have control of their children and keep them from just wandering about/playing on the sidewalk. And because sadly so many cyclists bomb down the sidewalk as if they're out on the road most of the parents are constantly warning their children to be careful of the approaching bikes.

As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, when I'm riding through these parks, I slow my speed down so that if a small child or dog "pops" up in front of my bike I can stop quicker.

There are some places where children shouldn't be allowed to wander/play. And a bike/multi use path is one of those places.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> How very condescending and mature. Crap crystal ball by the way I have 2 and when they were small I made sure they were safe.* Kids don't bother about the dangers around they just want to have fun, and why not?* It is our job to keep them safe. Perhaps you shouldn't let your children get in the way of others just because they can.
> 
> I was always taught it was a matter of manners



Why not indeed? This is why you cycle accordingly around them. 
For the record, it's not just kids. Any adult in a park or on a shared use path is quite entitled to walk around in a random zig zag pattern if they want to: if that inconveniences people on bikes, tough. Cyclists are the ones bringing the danger to shared use paths, just as motor vehicles do on the road. And in the same way as motor vehicles have to take responsibility for driving safely on the road, so do cyclists on shared use paths.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Parents should have a tag on small children. I would want to make sure my boys don't have collisions with moving cycles! We have a duty of care IMO to be mindful of pedestrians but they have to show common sense also. There are places where children should be left to roam and there are places where mum and dad should keep a short leash.
> 
> Stroppy teenagers sat in groups on cycles paths is a different issue all together



Agreed, parents need to take responsibility for the safety of their children. Just as other users have a responsibility not to endanger other path users. Exactly, mum and dad need to be mindful of where they allow their children to "roam free."

So far knock on wood I haven't had too many encounters with any unruly teenagers.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> No, it's cyclists' responsibility to avoid pedestrians on paths, no matter how young they are or how erratically they are behaving.



True, but parents also have a responsibility to make sure that their children are safe.

If they allow their children to run/play unsupervised in an area where there is a risk of them getting injured or killed they have to accept some of the blame for what happens to their children.

Here is a scenario that can easily happen:

We have Jane cyclist riding her bike down the bike/multi use path in the park. To her right is a good sized group of people walking on the pedestrian side, to her left there is a family enjoying a picnic lunch, running down the path head straight at her is small child. She has three options:

a) she can veer right and run into that group of people
b) she can veer left and run into the family enjoying their picnic
c) she can stay her path and run into the child

Regardless of the option that she chooses the parents of the child share in the responsibility because they were not supervising their child.

Here's another possible scenario:

Johnny cyclist is riding down the same bike/multi use path minding his own business, a small child runs out and onto the path. Right into his rear wheel knocking Johnny cyclist over. Injuring both cyclist & child alike. Again if the parents had been supervising their child the crash never would have happened.

Granted the odds of either or a similar scenario happening is low, but they are still possible. And the parents would share in the responsibility of actions of their child(ren)


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> It has to be both IMO. You can't just let kids run all over the place when they may be at risk. I agree cyclists must be extra vigilant but you can't lay it all with the cyclist. They wouldn't let their children run all over the main roads ................ or would they?



Agreed, sadly, though there are some parents who do not take proper care of their children.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

Option "d" for Jane - which you've forgotten about, for some reason - is that "she can stop, because she's riding at a speed which allows her to do so without endangering anyone or anything". Johnny's incident I grant you is one the cyclist could have done very little about, but the only real way to avoid such an incident is for children to be kept on leads at all times, and I think most people - even most parents - would see the risk of an occasional collision with a cyclist as preferable to that.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> It's not a main road, it's a path. Pedestrians have absolute priority, and that's it.



Agreed it's not a main road, but a bike path. But the parents are still responsible for making sure that their kids are safe.

I suppose that if the kids wonder off into the woods and eat a poisoned mushroom that it's the mushroom's fault for not putting the needs of the child first.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You are a wind up I think. It's unpredictable when children run out no matter how safely we are cycling. What a silly comment to make and one I'd take as an insult. 'Cycling properly'



Agreed, when riding in the park we all have a responsibility to ride safely and to be mindful of others in the park. That goes for parents keeping their children under control. So that they do not present a danger to other park users.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> And if they are being monitored correctly by parents they will be in one lane or another and easily identifiable and so avoidable
> 
> I'd love to stay and chew the fat with the fluffy brigade but I'm of out to do a bit of 'safe' cycling



Agreed, it's a parents responsibility to keep their children safe.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If you cycle at an appropriate speed, and give enough room (going onto the grass if necessary) there is no way for a collision to occur.
> No, I'm not on a wind-up.



There have been times when I've ridden through the local park(s) where there were so many people on the sidewalk, and/or in the grass or trees being off to the side of the path/sidewalk that going into the grass isn't an option.

And even with slowing down it is still possible for a child or a dog or wild animal to run in front of a cyclist and not give them enough time or room to avoid a crash.

Thre have been times when I've been riding through the park were I've had to slow down to 2 or 3MPH so as to avoid colliding with someone walking in front of me. Sadly, I appear to be in the minority as most people that I see riding through the park(s) do so at speeds that are better suited to riding on the road.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> There have been times when I've ridden through the local park(s) where there were so many people on the sidewalk, and/or in the grass or trees being off to the side of the path/sidewalk that going into the grass isn't an option.
> 
> And even with slowing down it is still possible for a child or a dog or wild animal to run in front of a cyclist and not give them enough time or room to avoid a crash.
> 
> Thre have been times when I've been riding through the park were *I've had to slow down to 2 or 3MPH so as to avoid colliding with someone walking in front of me.* Sadly, I appear to be in the minority as most people that I see riding through the park(s) do so at speeds that are better suited to riding on the road.



There you go, then. That's presumably what benb meant by "cycle at an appropriate speed". If you can't avoid a collision, the next best thing is going slowly enough so that if you do collide with someone you'll do them no damage.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> I've never liked all these shared-use paths, whether with marked separation or not - they just transfer the car-driver/cyclist antagonism to one of cyclist/pedestrian. They'll only work if they're legally made proper cycle paths on which pedestrians may walk 'permissively' - ie at their own risk. After all, with the network of public footpaths and pavements in this country, pedestrians are the best served of all users (and I write as a keen walker as well as cyclist). If you've ever accidentally walked on marked cycle lanes in Germany without looking you'll know it - if they can work there...



Agreed, I was talking with a gentleman not too long ago about the newly widened sidewalk/MUP and how he thought that I'd be using it more than the street. I explained to him that I usually ride at too fast of a speed to safely use the new MUP. And that just as we cyclists don't like it when motorists pass us too close at 40MPH that pedestrians also don't like it when we pass them at 15 - 20MPH with same narrow margin between us.

He understood what I was saying and agreed.

And as I've said, when I'm riding through the park I slow my speed down. The fastest I've ridden through the park when there are people walking is 9 or 10MPH. Usually much slower.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484216"]
What you've got isn't a clique, but several people disagreeing with you. 

A park is a park. It's multi-use. *You can't restrict the use to one significant group hugely, just so that they don't get in your way.*
[/quote]

That goes both ways, parents can't let their children run wild in the park and then cry foul if those same children end up getting hit by someone on a bicycle.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The point you are missing is that children should not have to be on the look out for that type of danger in a park.



That is what their parents are for. I guess some here would blame the train if a train track was running through or near a park and a child ran out on to the train tracks and got hit and killed.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484232"]
You are complaining about children having free rein on a path in a park.
[/quote]

Then I guess it's alright to allow those same children to have free rein and to run into the car park in the park, or into the paved driveway leading through and to the other side of the park and the exit.

Even though parks are safe (or at least safer) than other areas within a town, there are still dangers within them. And it is their parents job to make sure that they are safe.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484247"]
You're complaining about children getting in your way in a park, then when several people point out some thinks to you, you claim to be misunderstood. But you're not being misunderstood, you're just complaining about children being allowed free rein in a park.
[/quote]

No, I think that the problem is that some parents exercise little if any control over their children. And then try to blame others when their children are injured.

Here in Florida we have all manner of dangerous animals, from poisonous snakes, to alligators, to poisonous insects. If a child is allowed to just run willy nilly through the park there is a good chance that they're going to encounter one or more of those dangerous animals. Plus here in Florida sink holes have a habit opening up with little warning.

Some of them being large enough to swallow a building or a car, or both.

A child or an adult can get killed falling into one.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> are we actually referring to children or dogs? maybe u should complain about dogs too. but hey i only see dogs on rein and not kids. u cant put a leash on a 5 year old. did you?



Uh, actually growing up my parents had a harness and leash for each of us kids.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I understand the meaning of the word hazard perfectly.
> Cycles can be hazards in some situations, but should not be a hazard in a park!
> 
> *If you're cycling in a park in such a way that you are a hazard, then you're doing it wrong*.



You do know, don't you that it is possible for a cyclist to be doing everything right and still end up getting involved in a crash with a child or a pedestrian. And that when all is said and done that the cyclist wouldn't be at fault.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Drivel. Unless someone hides behind a bush and hurls themselves into your path, a cyclist-pedestrian collision should never happen on a path in a park.
> If it does, the cyclist was cycling too fast, or not giving enough room, or didn't make the pedestrian aware of his presence, or all three.
> 
> You are a pathetic troll and are now the only person to be put on my ignore list - not even Lee has managed that!



Around here there are too many people walking through the parks/MUPs paying more attention to their cell phones than where they are walking. There are also way too many people who are listening to their iPods at a volume that is way too loud. I have come up behind several of the last type where I could hear their music from several feet away. So that giving them any kind of warning that one is behind them or are passing them is useless.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Option "d" for Jane - which you've forgotten about, for some reason - is that "she can stop, because she's riding at a speed which allows her to do so without endangering anyone or anything". Johnny's incident I grant you is one the cyclist could have done very little about, but the only real way to avoid such an incident is for children to be kept on leads at all times, and I think most people - even most parents - would see the risk of an occasional collision with a cyclist as preferable to that.



Even if one is riding at a slow speed, it is still possible not to avoid a crash.

Many, many years ago in high school social studies my teacher gave a similar example to the one I used with Jane Cyclist. Only it was a car driving down the road, with parked cars on one side, oncoming traffic on the other side of the road, and a child runs out into the path of the car. According to her the legal option was to hit the child, and than stop and wait for the authorities to show up.

Regardless of the speed one is traveling, it is possible for a child (or a dog, or wild animal) to appear in the path of a bicycle, car or horse and the operator having no way of stopping in time to avoid the crash.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Around here there are too many people walking through the parks/MUPs paying more attention to their cell phones than where they are walking. There are also way too many people who are listening to their iPods at a volume that is way too loud. I have come up behind several of the last type where I could hear their music from several feet away. So that giving them any kind of warning that one is behind them or are passing them is useless.


you might just as well dismount and walk as it is not safe to cycle on these conditions. there are situations that we cant avoid a collision, but reality is accidents can happen. and if accidents regularly happens maybe the local council might want to have a look at health and safety issue of this shared path. and i can't see them prohibiting the use of devices such as ipods or mobile phones while walking on a shared path.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484303"]
You're still yet to explain what danger a cyclist at 2mph is to a child...
[/quote]

12 stone cyclist might fall over a child while cycling in the park. probably a clipless moment


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> You _*WANT*_ children wandering about where they can get hit and hurt possibly looking at a serious injury or even death? Is that what you are saying?
> 
> The only real MUP that we have where I live, the "worse" that I have seen is people allowing their dogs to roam free on it. However when I am riding through the parks in the downtown area the parents have control of their children and keep them from just wandering about/playing on the sidewalk. And because sadly so many cyclists bomb down the sidewalk as if they're out on the road most of the parents are constantly warning their children to be careful of the approaching bikes.
> 
> ...



Don't even go there. Apparently when I note this I am just complaining which I have been reliably informed is wrong


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484309"]
That's a different argument. 

I spent a lovely afternoon in a park on Saturday with my boys. Kids everywhere, bikes everywhere. A couple of weddings taking place. A land train. A little fair. Boats on the lake. Ice creams. Toddlers with stabilizers, scooters, wobbling allover the place.

Funnily enough, the kids were all having a whale of a time, running and cycling freely. And you know what? No collisions. None whatsoever. The only time it came close was when a couple of cyclists buzzed their way through. I think they thought kids should be on reins, and should be kept out of their way. Nutters.
[/quote]


You really are boring me now


----------



## BentMikey (1 Aug 2011)

Moderators, could we close this topic now please? It's become a schoolyard misbehaviour example of note. There are no winners, only losers.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed it's not a main road, but a bike path. But the parents are still responsible for making sure that their kids are safe.
> 
> I suppose that if the kids wonder off into the woods and eat a poisoned mushroom that it's the mushroom's fault for not putting the needs of the child first.



It is NOT a bike path. Regardless of the segregation is it a shared use path. Pedestrians always have priority. As for your last sentence it is not even worthy of an answer.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> That is what their parents are for. I guess some here would blame the train if a train track was running through or near a park and a child ran out on to the train tracks and got hit and killed.



It is a PARK. A place for children to play. Many parks actually have no cycling policies becuase too many people treat them as cycle ways.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Uh, actually growing up my parents had a harness and leash for each of us kids.



That explains a lot about your hazard perception.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

@Digital_Cowboy, I'm not going to reply to every single post you have made, but in no particular order:

Why are you muddying the water talking about poisonous mushrooms and train tracks? It's perfectly obvious we are only talking about cycling through a park. Things like that, and open mine shafts, are rather conspicuous by their absence in parks, at least in the UK. I never said parents shouldn't protect their children from hazards, but that *cyclists in parks shouldn't be a hazard*.
No matter what signage is on the path, it is shared use, and as such pedestrians have priority. If there are too many pedestrians to pass safely, then you get off and walk. If you cycle at an appropriate speed, giving enough room, the probability of a collision is pretty much nil. *If you are cycling in a park in such a way that you pose a hazard to pedestrians, then you are doing it wrong*. Yes, someone could run out from behind a bush and hurl themselves into your path; that is pretty much the only situation I can think of where a collision would be unavoidable.
Pedestrians can do what they like on paths, and that includes wandering back and forth in an unpredictable zigzag. *Pedestrians have priority; you as a cyclist are bringing the danger; it's your responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not theirs to avoid you*. If you don't want to deal with that, don't cycle on paths.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> @Digital_Cowboy, I'm not going to reply to every single post you have made, but in no particular order:
> 
> Why are you muddying the water talking about poisonous mushrooms and train tracks? It's perfectly obvious we are only talking about cycling through a park. Things like that, and open mine shafts, are rather conspicuous by their absence in parks, at least in the UK. I never said parents shouldn't protect their children from hazards, but that *cyclists in parks shouldn't be a hazard*.
> No matter what signage is on the path, it is shared use, and as such pedestrians have priority. If there are too many pedestrians to pass safely, then you get off and walk. If you cycle at an appropriate speed, giving enough room, the probability of a collision is pretty much nil. *If you are cycling in a park in such a way that you pose a hazard to pedestrians, then you are doing it wrong*. Yes, someone could run out from behind a bush and hurl themselves into your path; that is pretty much the only situation I can think of where a collision would be unavoidable.
> Pedestrians can do what they like on paths, and that includes wandering back and forth in an unpredictable zigzag. *Pedestrians have priority; you as a cyclist are bringing the danger; it's your responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not theirs to avoid you*. If you don't want to deal with that, don't cycle on paths.



To summarise then. Pads have priority on these paths. Cyclists need to be aware, slow down or stop if necessary. Simplez


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

I can't understand how this turned into a massive argument.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Aug 2011)

Should you behave any differently for pedestrians on the roads?


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I can't understand how this turned into a massive argument.



I love the way you Guys ignore stuff. You can't even get that right  

Massive arguement? It's a debate and the funniest one I've been in for quite some time. You brighten my day and will forever be remembered as the 3 Muskateers .......... fighting for the just


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Should you behave any differently for pedestrians on the roads?



Peds have priority everywhere so yes.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Should you behave any differently for pedestrians on the roads?



Well, I slow down when I'm driving if I see a pedestrian who looks like they might do something unpredictable, so yes, I suppose you should.


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Peds have priority everywhere so yes.




The highway code states that pedestrians have right of way on roads unless in avoiding the pedestrian the driver of the vehicle can see that such any avoidance would cause a bigger hazard

You're only half right big fella and don't take into account walking out into the path of a 30mph vehicle! "He was pissed and stumbled into the road when he was hit but should have had te right of way LMFAO!!!"


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> 12 stone cyclist might fall over a child while cycling in the park. probably a clipless moment




Obviously there are moving parts. It's not that difficult to understand? Imagine a small child leaving Daddy's side and running arms first into the rear wheel or a chain ................. the clipless moment is familiar though


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484325"]
Does it?
[/quote]

Er No it doesn't


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484325"]
Does it?
[/quote]

I thought you would know it word for word and cover to cover? Now I am trully shocked


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er No it doesn't



Oh I forgot about your method of translation! So very sorry Big Fella


----------



## gaz (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Oh I forgot about your method of translation! So very sorry Big Fella


Quote where it says it then. The highway code can be found on direct.gov website.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Quote where it says it then. The highway code can be found on direct.gov website.



Gaz I think I have pulled here


----------



## wiggydiggy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I can't understand how this turned into a massive argument.



Same, I normally like shared path discussions but this one couldnt be less entertaining than if Buzz Buzzkiller had rocked up 
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok go on then I'll play 

I like shared path cycling, its a pleasant change to my normal commute/exercise rides as its chance to go a little slower and have a look around a bit more. No rush and I dont mind playing child-dodgems. 

Dont need to state and agree with the obvious like the line being a guide, peds having priority, shared park use etc


----------



## Dan B (1 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Quote where it says it then. The highway code can be found on direct.gov website.



Yes, I am eager to learn this too.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Yes, I am eager to learn this too.



The implication being that the highway code advises motorists to run peds over if the other option is to crash into a car or other obstacle !!!


----------



## JonnyBlade (1 Aug 2011)

Still looking. If I don't find it then I'll hold my hand up. Still right about the other stuff though


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

http://www.aberdeencycleforum.org.uk/include/pdf/20060617_shared_paths_low_res.pdf this might help close the argument. everyone agree? me thinks.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> http://www.aberdeenc...ths_low_res.pdf this might help close the argument. everyone agree? me thinks.



Some might point out that Scottish Law is not always the same of the rest of the UK. I agree 100% with what it says but there are always a couple who will fight for the rights of cyclists to be able to do what ever they want where-ever they wan to do it.


----------



## Bman (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Children learn more from mistakes than anything else. You get hurt, you don't want to get hurt so you don't repeat that mistake (too often)




Why are some people advocating compulsory helmet use for children then?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Bongman said:


> Why are some people advocating compulsory helmet use for children then?



 I have no idea!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484339"]
I should have made it easier for you and asked you to quote the relevant section....
[/quote]

Come on we all know :troll: s can't read


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Come on we all know :troll: s can't read




I see the school bullies are out in the yard again


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I see the school bullies are out in the yard again



 I love it. Rich indeed, coming from someone who uses his bike as a weapon on shared use paths, then posts footage of it all over the internet. You ridden into any other pedestrians recently?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I love it. Rich indeed, coming from someone who uses his bike as a weapon on shared use paths, then posts footage of it all over the internet. You ridden into any other pedestrians recently?


Don't feed the :troll: s


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

Sorry.


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I love it. Rich indeed, coming from someone who uses his bike as a weapon on shared use paths, then posts footage of it all over the internet. You ridden into any other pedestrians recently?



at least I don`t come back with the biggest load of dibble I have ever come across, some of you have got to get a life FFS, don`t ask me why I come on here to read some of the crap thats on here, I just don`t know, there`s not many sensible people who make comments & the real sensible ones make no comments at all, Hang on! what does that make me? LOL


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Sorry.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> at least I don`t come back with the biggest load of dibble I have ever come across, some of you have got to get a life FFS, don`t ask me why I come on here to read some of the crap thats on here, I just don`t know, there`s not many sensible people who make comments & the real sensible ones make no comments at all, Hang on! what does that make me? LOL



Don't feel you have to keep coming back.


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Don't feed the :troll: s



Great coming from someone who has to make up stories to get attention, oh & before you mention it again, you`re 16 stone & 6ft tall, yea we know god how many time s have we heard that
come up with something that you don`t get all angry about & stop being the school bully in the playground


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Don't feel you have to keep coming back.




Same old friendly forum


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a bully.


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a bully.




Just look at some of the replies to certain people (not meaning me) AFS is a typical bullyboy, can`t get his own way & make`s up stories, so many can see it


----------



## BentMikey (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a bully.



Although to be frank there's quite a bit of bullying going on in this topic. Shame really, it's what can make CC a sometimes rather unpleasant place.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Although to be frank there's quite a bit of bullying going on in this topic. Shame really, it's what can make CC a sometimes rather unpleasant place.



I haven't really seen any - just an open and frank exchange of views!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Although to be frank there's quite a bit of bullying going on in this topic. Shame really, it's what can make CC a sometimes rather unpleasant place.


Could you point out some of the bullying please?


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

There is a couple of strange arguments going on in this thread Firstly to suggest that a cyclist on a shared use path in a park is not a hazard to pedestrians is inaccurate. However the risk posed to pedestrians by the cyclist riding properly is very minimal, as the op suggested that risk can increase by stepping in front of an approaching cycle and it would be wise of parents to remind their kids of the dangers of stepping in front of bikes. But it has to be said that as has been posted by several others if you hit anybody on a path it's your fault under the law. if you are unsure what the child is going to do, stop. It's why we have brakes.


----------



## wiggydiggy (1 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> There is a couple of strange arguments going on in this thread Firstly to suggest that a cyclist on a shared use path in a park is not a hazard to pedestrians is inaccurate. However the risk posed to pedestrians by the cyclist riding properly is very minimal, as the op suggested that risk can increase by stepping in front of an approaching cycle and it would be wise of parents to remind their kids of the dangers of stepping in front of bikes. But it has to be said that as has been posted by several others if you hit anybody on a path it's your fault under the law. if you are unsure what the child is going to do, stop. It's why we have brakes.



Your absolutely right and unfortunately the message is getting a little lost in the chaff.....

The 'parents to remind kids of danger' should not be mistaken for 'keep them chained up so they cant run free' For me children on the shared path are the biggest reason to slow down, they just dont have the sense of danger yet would tell other people to take care around a (slowing) bicycle.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Your absolutely right and unfortunately the message is getting a little lost in the chaff.....
> 
> The 'parents to remind kids of danger' should not be mistaken for 'keep them chained up so they cant run free' For me children on the shared path are the biggest reason to slow down, they just dont have the sense of danger yet would tell other people to take care around a (slowing) bicycle.


+1


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> True, but parents also have a responsibility to make sure that their children are safe.
> 
> If they allow their children to run/play unsupervised in an area where there is a risk of them getting injured or killed they have to accept some of the blame for what happens to their children.
> 
> ...


none of the above
d) she should slow to walking pace, stop if need be, and proceed only when she knows it's safe to do so.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Uh, actually growing up my parents had a harness and leash for each of us kids.


with entirely predictable results


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> none of the above
> d) she should slow to walking pace, stop if need be, and proceed only when she knows it's safe to do so.



Oh come on we all know that nothing has the right to stop a cyclist!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> with entirely predictable results


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> wrong!!! not even a good try


is this radical denial of responsibility

a) an ironic comment on our political system
b) a provocation designed to radicalise pedestrians
c) an art installation looking for public subsidy
d) ignorant


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Aug 2011)

I've been trying to avoid this thread lately for obvious reasons but...



> Here is a scenario that can easily happen:
> 
> We have Jane cyclist riding her bike down the bike/multi use path in the park. To her right is a good sized group of people walking on the pedestrian side, to her left there is a family enjoying a picnic lunch, running down the path head straight at her is small child. She has three options:
> 
> ...



...I can't believe anybody posted this!


----------



## wiggydiggy (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Uh, actually growing up my parents had a harness and leash for each of us kids.



Oooh I missed this one, takes me back.

I had reins on me when smaller, I think I had it until I had learnt to stop being a little monkey and running in front of everyone and anyone  To be fair I think I only had it whilst learning to walk so my parents could be close in case of a tumble, its certainly not on any pictures of me once I stopped toddling.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> There is a couple of strange arguments going on in this thread Firstly *to suggest that a cyclist on a shared use path in a park is not a hazard to pedestrians is inaccurate*. However the risk posed to pedestrians by the cyclist riding properly is very minimal, as the op suggested that risk can increase by stepping in front of an approaching cycle and it would be wise of parents to remind their kids of the dangers of stepping in front of bikes. But it has to be said that as has been posted by several others if you hit anybody on a path it's your fault under the law. if you are unsure what the child is going to do, stop. It's why we have brakes.



If ridden properly, a cyclist should not pose a hazard to pedestrians.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Aug 2011)

*snigger*


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (1 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> *snigger*



Pfffft. Well spotted!


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> *snigger*


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

cant believe its still goin on.


----------



## wiggydiggy (1 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> cant believe its still goin on.



To be fair I think theres two things going on, one is a fairly lively chat about pedestrians and shared path use, the other one you need to be a member of the 'Cyclechat Inner Sanctum' and I cant figure it out *

*I'm joking of course


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If ridden properly, a cyclist should not pose a hazard to pedestrians.




If walking with brain engaged a pedestrian should not pose a hazard to a cyclist (excluding dogs & children)


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> If walking with brain engaged a pedestrian should not pose a hazard to a cyclist (excluding dogs & children)



If you mean wandering into the road with looking, I agree (although as responsible road users, we should try and be ready for that sort of thing).
If you mean wandering about unpredictably on a path, I disagree, as they have every right to do so.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484373"]
Pleas don't try and make excuses for your poor anticipation. Peds (within reason) and away from a road can pretty much do what they want.
[/quote]

Lee, I'm happy to say this is one area we are in complete agreement (I knew there had to be one!)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If you mean wandering into the road with looking, I agree (although as responsible road users, we should try and be ready for that sort of thing).
> If you mean wandering about unpredictably on a path, I disagree, as they have every right to do so.


Ben as I've said before certain cyclists believe that they own everywhere they ride and anyone getting in their way is fair game. They also complain when road users behave in the same way.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> If walking with brain engaged a pedestrian should not pose a hazard to a cyclist (excluding dogs & children)


the difference between the two is simple - speed hurts. People walking in a park do, in a general kind of way, owe it to others (and to themselves) not to walk in to one another, albeit that the risk is tiny. Cyclists, travelling at a greater speed, should ensure, as best they can, that they don't injure others, or put others in fear of injury. Further cyclists should get it in to their heads that their speed is seen as an affront, or disrespectful to the spirit of certain places, notably parks, which are, after all, places of recreation.

If memory serves the Highway Code tells us to ride on shared paths no faster than twelve miles an hour. Lambeth Council has imposed a five miles an hour speed limit across Clapham Common. I would say that if there were people on a shared path then eight or nine miles an hour would be a sensible maximum, and that one should reduce one's speed still further (as Ben does in his video) when close to pedestrians, especially children, the elderly, or people with headphones on. If you can't work out how to do this, take to the road. And if you can't work out why you should do this, then it' probably because you lack the ability to empathise with others.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484373"]
Pleas don't try and make excuses for your poor anticipation. Peds (within reason) and away from a road can pretty much do what they want.
[/quote]
Stop bullying poor locker.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> the difference between the two is simple - speed hurts. People walking in a park do, in a general kind of way, owe it to others (and to themselves) not to walk in to one another, albeit that the risk is tiny. Cyclists, travelling at a greater speed, should ensure, as best they can, that they don't injure others, or put others in fear of injury. Further cyclists should get it in to their heads that their speed is seen as an affront, or disrespectful to the spirit of certain places, notably parks, which are, after all, places of recreation.
> 
> If memory serves the Highway Code tells us to ride on shared paths no faster than twelve miles an hour. Lambeth Council has imposed a five miles an hour speed limit across Clapham Common. I would say that if there were people on a shared path then eight or nine miles an hour would be a sensible maximum, and that one should reduce one's speed still further (as Ben does in his video) when close to pedestrians, especially children, the elderly, or people with headphones on. If you can't work out how to do this, take to the road. And if you can't work out why you should do this, then it' probably because you lack the ability to empathise with others.


Well said


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> the difference between the two is simple - speed hurts. People walking in a park do, in a general kind of way, owe it to others (and to themselves) not to walk in to one another, albeit that the risk is tiny. Cyclists, travelling at a greater speed, should ensure, as best they can, that they don't injure others, or put others in fear of injury. Further cyclists should get it in to their heads that their speed is seen as an affront, or disrespectful to the spirit of certain places, notably parks, which are, after all, places of recreation.
> 
> If memory serves the Highway Code tells us to ride on shared paths no faster than twelve miles an hour. Lambeth Council has imposed a five miles an hour speed limit across Clapham Common. I would say that if there were people on a shared path then eight or nine miles an hour would be a sensible maximum, and that one should reduce one's speed still further (as Ben does in his video) when close to pedestrians, especially children, the elderly, or people with headphones on. If you can't work out how to do this, take to the road. And if you can't work out why you should do this, then it' probably because you lack the ability to empathise with others.



wow! back to talking sense again, glad I`ve pulled you all together again, now behave yourselves, got to go out on the cycle path for the 30 mins


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm I'll quote from the link for those who can't be bothered to read 

* Definition of a hazard*
A hazard is something (e.g. an object, a property of a substance, a phenomenon or an activity) that can cause adverse effects.


* Definition of a risk*
A risk is the likelihood that a hazard will actually cause its adverse effects, 

To recap a cyclist is a hazard for pedestrians on shared footpath and vice versa however the risk is minimal if the cyclist behaves properly and in law it is up to cyclists to take the appropriate action to minimise risk. Before people get on their high horses about cycling is not a hazard I have seen at least one person on a video knocked down by a cyclist. cycling was certainly hazardous for that person


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm I'll quote from the link for those who can't be bothered to read
> 
> * Definition of a hazard*
> A hazard is something (e.g. an object, a property of a substance, a phenomenon or an activity) that can cause adverse effects.
> ...


To mimic Mr Paul. *Competent* cyclists do not pose a hazard to pedestrians


----------



## GrasB (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484380"]Pedestrians don't pose a hazard to competent cyclists.[/quote]
I'd add to this, a competent cyclist not threatened by a 3rd party - say without a motorist intimidating a cyclist as they attempts to pass a pedestrian walking reasonably along the side of the road with an appropriate gap (eg a 2m gap to the ped at 20mph)


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> To mimic Mr Paul. *Competent* cyclists do not pose a hazard to pedestrians



If you had read the post you would have read That I had pretty much said that but its not true to say there is no risk which some have said . The fact is if you behave like a pillock someone is going to get hurt


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> If you had read the post you would have read That I had pretty much said that but its not true to say there is no risk which some have said . The fact is if you behave like a pillock someone is going to get hurt


I did read your post and I stand by my statement which contains the key word *competent*.


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I did read your post and I stand by my statement which contains the key word *competent*.



then you are wrong the risk is minimal not zero


----------



## Bman (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> To mimic Mr Paul. *Competent* cyclists do not pose a hazard to pedestrians




I disagee. From the perspective of the pedestrian, the cyclist is still a hazard, regardless of competency. 

"Competent cyclists do not pose a *risk* to pedestrians" would be closer, but still not entirely true. Something unplanned still might happen, even if travelling the same speed (or slower) than the pedestrians. 

But I see the point your trying to make


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> then you are wrong the risk is minimal not zero


Swap minimal for infinitesimal and we agree.


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484388"]
Competent cyclists are as much a risk to pedestrians as other pedestrians.
[/quote]

I agree with that statement


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Bongman said:


> I disagee. From the perspective of the pedestrian, the cyclist is still a hazard, regardless of competency.
> 
> "Competent cyclists do not pose a *risk* to pedestrians" would be closer, but still not entirely true. Something unplanned still might happen, even if travelling the same speed (or slower) than the pedestrians.
> 
> But I see the point your trying to make


The likelyhood of a competent cyclist causing problem for a pedestrian is so close to zero as not to matter.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> wow! back to talking sense again, glad I`ve pulled you all together again, now behave yourselves, got to go out on the cycle path for the 30 mins


fine, but leave the nasty attitude toward pedestrians who don't meet approval at home


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> you might just as well dismount and walk as it is not safe to cycle on these conditions. there are situations that we cant avoid a collision, but reality is accidents can happen. and if accidents regularly happens maybe the local council might want to have a look at health and safety issue of this shared path. and i can't see them prohibiting the use of devices such as iPods or mobile phones while walking on a shared path.



So far as I know there hasn't been any crashes between cyclists and oblivious walkers, but I would imagine that it's only a matter of time before it does happen.


----------



## gaz (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> So far as I know there hasn't been any crashes between cyclists and oblivious walkers, but I would imagine that it's only a matter of time before it does happen.


Oh so you haven't seen the big mamma video?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484304"]
Scenario 1 - easy. She's cycling too fast. Were she at an appropriate speed she wouldn't have to veer anyway, she'd just stop.
[/quote]

Even if she is traveling at an "appropriate" speed she can still encounter a child or an adult or dog/wild animal in her path and not have enough time to stop.

You do know that that is one of the big dangers with salmon cyclists on the road, right? That reaction times are *NOT* fast enough to avoid a crash. Even though they seem to think that by doing so that they are "safer" as they can see what's coming at them and get out of the way.

And children, or dogs, or wild animals can be moving faster then they appear to be moving.

Also think of it like this, just like the road that goes through the middle of town is for *MOVING* people from one point to another. So to is the bike/multi use path that is going through the middle of a park.

It is there to *MOVE* people from one point within/out the park to another point within/out of the park. It is *NOT* for children to stop on and play. It is for *MOVING* people from Point A to Point B. And just like the road(s) that goes through town it can and does present a danger to those who do not know how to properly use it.


----------



## Dan B (1 Aug 2011)

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


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Even if she is traveling at an "appropriate" speed she can still encounter a child or an adult or dog/wild animal in her path and not have enough time to stop.
> 
> You do know that that is one of the big dangers with salmon cyclists on the road, right? That reaction times are *NOT* fast enough to avoid a crash. Even though they seem to think that by doing so that they are "safer" as they can see what's coming at them and get out of the way.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> So far as I know there hasn't been any crashes between cyclists and oblivious walkers, but I would imagine that it's only a matter of time before it does happen.



its just a matter of time? how long have you been cycling on the shared path? matter of time is infinite. as long as we perceive the dangers of cycling on the shared path we cyclist must take the necessary measures in order to minimise or eliminate the possibility of accidents.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484306"]
Well done, you appear to have got it now.

The other bloke won't answer, so I'll ask you - what's the risk to a child from a cyclist riding at 2mph?
[/quote]

It's not that I "got it now," if you go back and read some of my posts you'll see that I have said that I've always ridden as slowly as needed to avoid hitting someone in the park. That doesn't mean that even with the care that I take that a crash still might not happen.

As an example a month or so ago, I was riding on the street past the park that when I am riding in the opposite direction that I ride through. There was a concert of some sort going on in the park, and the street that I was on was closed to motor vehicle traffic. As I was slowly making my way through the street and the people walking some gal who was walking in the opposite direction hit my handlebar.

Cause I was going slow it wasn't as bad as it could have been, i.e. both of us ending up on the ground or what have you. She kept walking, and I kept on riding.

The risk to a child from a cyclist riding at 2MPH are broken bones, concussion, and worse case death.

I weigh about 205lbs according to my last checkup. I ride a bike that weighs about 20 or so pounds. What do you think the results would be of 200+lbs rider/bike landing on a small child?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> It's not that I "got it now," if you go back and read some of my posts you'll see that I have said that I've always ridden as slowly as needed to avoid hitting someone in the park. That doesn't mean that even with the care that I take that a crash still might not happen.
> 
> As an example a month or so ago, I was riding on the street past the park that when I am riding in the opposite direction that I ride through. There was a concert of some sort going on in the park, and the street that I was on was closed to motor vehicle traffic. As I was slowly making my way through the street and the people walking some gal who was walking in the opposite direction hit my handlebar.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484307"]
It's a park. Children are supposed to run around in them. If a cyclist rides into a child in a park then the cyclist is riding too fast.
[/quote]

Exactly, it's a park, but that doesn't mean that a parent can allow their children to run wild and interfere with other people trying to enjoy the park. And a bike/multi use path is not someplace where children need to be playing. They can and should be playing everywhere else _*BUT*_ on the bike/multi use path. As it is there to facilitate the moving of people not only in and out of the park, but through the park.

It is not for playing hopscotch on, or tic-tac-toe on, or any other game the children like to play.


----------



## Alun (1 Aug 2011)

Interesting leaflet on Shared Use Paths here http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/Info sheets/ff04.pdf
Maybe a little dated, but I like the quaint photos.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484308"]
Any driver entering a car park in a park should expect there to be children wandering around.
[/quote]

Given the very real danger that the car park presents parents should not allow their children to "wander" around the car park.

As it is not a play area and children have no business wandering or playing in it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Given the very real danger that the car park presents parents should not allow their children to "wander" around the car park.
> 
> As it is not a play area and children have no business wandering or playing in it.


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


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Exactly, it's a park, but that doesn't mean that a parent can allow their children to run wild and interfere with other people trying to enjoy the park. And a bike/multi use path is not someplace where children need to be playing. They can and should be playing everywhere else _*BUT*_ on the bike/multi use path. As it is there to facilitate the moving of people not only in and out of the park, but through the park.
> 
> It is not for playing hopscotch on, or tic-tac-toe on, or any other game the children like to play.


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


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


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



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.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484309"]
That's a different argument.[/quote]

Not entirely, if a parent allows their child(ren) to run wild in the park with little to no supervision than it is the parent's fault if their child(ren) is/are injured. Yes, children are and should be safe in a park. But there are things within most if not all parks that present a danger to children.

As an example, there is usually some sort of storage shed for supplies for the maintenance of the park. If a parent takes their child(ren) to a park and let's them run wild and they end up getting into the shed and poisoning themselves who is responsible? The parent or the park management?

[QUOTE 1484309"]I spent a lovely afternoon in a park on Saturday with my boys. Kids everywhere, bikes everywhere. A couple of weddings taking place. A land train. A little fair. Boats on the lake. Ice creams. Toddlers with stabilizers, scooters, wobbling allover the place.

Funnily enough, the kids were all having a whale of a time, running and cycling freely. And you know what? No collisions. None whatsoever. The only time it came close was when a couple of cyclists buzzed their way through. I think they thought kids should be on reins, and should be kept out of their way. Nutters.
[/quote]

That is usually how it is when I am riding through the park as well. Put parents here take responsibility for their children and when they see someone on a bike on the sidewalk/MUP they tell their children to be careful of the bike. Because sadly too many cyclists as I have said before will ride at speeds as if they're out on the road. And sadly they do not slow down when they encounter other people in the park/on the sidewalk/MUP.

Even though there are signs posted instructing cyclists to yield to pedestrians.

As I've said I slow down so as not to pose a risk to others in the park and when/if someone who is walking in front of me realizes that I am behind them. They'll move aside and apologize for "slowing" me down. I tell 'em that there's no need to apologize and continue on my way.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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.


I agree. I raised the possibility of cultural differences in an earlier post but it was not addressed.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> @Digital_Cowboy, I'm not going to reply to every single post you have made, but in no particular order:
> 
> Why are you muddying the water talking about poisonous mushrooms and train tracks? It's perfectly obvious we are only talking about cycling through a park. Things like that, and open mine shafts, are rather conspicuous by their absence in parks, at least in the UK. I never said parents shouldn't protect their children from hazards, but that *cyclists in parks shouldn't be a hazard*.
> No matter what signage is on the path, it is shared use, and as such pedestrians have priority. If there are too many pedestrians to pass safely, then you get off and walk. If you cycle at an appropriate speed, giving enough room, the probability of a collision is pretty much nil. *If you are cycling in a park in such a way that you pose a hazard to pedestrians, then you are doing it wrong*. Yes, someone could run out from behind a bush and hurl themselves into your path; that is pretty much the only situation I can think of where a collision would be unavoidable.
> Pedestrians can do what they like on paths, and that includes wandering back and forth in an unpredictable zigzag. *Pedestrians have priority; you as a cyclist are bringing the danger; it's your responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not theirs to avoid you*. If you don't want to deal with that, don't cycle on paths.



I was trying to point out that besides cyclists that there are all sorts of dangers in a park and that not all of them are as obvious as a cyclist. And that is why parents need to take responsibility for their children's actions while in the park.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Oooh I missed this one, takes me back.
> 
> I had reins on me when smaller, I think I had it until I had learnt to stop being a little monkey and running in front of everyone and anyone  To be fair I think I only had it whilst learning to walk so my parents could be close in case of a tumble, its certainly not on any pictures of me once I stopped toddling.



I think that my parents used them for the same reason. And I have no direct memory of it, just what my mother told me when I was older.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If ridden properly, a cyclist should not pose a hazard to pedestrians.



I'm sorry, but the more you repeat that phrase the more you sound like those drivers who think that bikes don't belong on "their" roads. As there are times when the person on a bike can be doing everything correct and still end up in a crash with a pedestrian.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I was trying to point out that besides cyclists that there are all sorts of dangers in a park and that not all of them are as obvious as a cyclist. And that is why parents need to take responsibility for their children's actions while in the park.



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.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If you mean wandering into the road with looking, I agree (although as responsible road users, we should try and be ready for that sort of thing).
> If you mean wandering about unpredictably on a path, I disagree, as they have every right to do so.



I have to disagree with you on that. Everyone on the path has an obligation to use it in a predictable manner. Otherwise that'd be like saying that motorists have the "right" to behave in an unpredictable manner on the street.

Which judging by the way that some drive they feel that way now anyway

And I do have to agree that where the road is concerned that (at least over here in the States) the doctrine of last chance says that cars, bicycles, etc. if they can safely avoid a crash are required to do so, even if a pedestrian is behaving in an illegal manner.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I'm sorry, but the more you repeat that phrase the more you sound like those drivers who think that bikes don't belong on "their" roads. As there are times when the person on a bike can be doing everything correct and still end up in a crash with a pedestrian.



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.


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I have to disagree with you on that. Everyone on the path has an obligation to use it in a predictable manner. Otherwise that'd be like saying that motorists have the "right" to behave in an unpredictable manner on the street.
> 
> Which judging by the way that some drive they feel that way now anyway.



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


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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.


Well said.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> the difference between the two is simple - speed hurts. People walking in a park do, in a general kind of way, owe it to others (and to themselves) not to walk in to one another, albeit that the risk is tiny. Cyclists, travelling at a greater speed, should ensure, as best they can, that they don't injure others, or put others in fear of injury. Further cyclists should get it in to their heads that their speed is seen as an affront, or disrespectful to the spirit of certain places, notably parks, which are, after all, places of recreation.
> 
> If memory serves the Highway Code tells us to ride on shared paths no faster than twelve miles an hour. Lambeth Council has imposed a five miles an hour speed limit across Clapham Common. I would say that if there were people on a shared path then eight or nine miles an hour would be a sensible maximum, and that one should reduce one's speed still further (as Ben does in his video) when close to pedestrians, especially children, the elderly, or people with headphones on. If you can't work out how to do this, take to the road. And if you can't work out why you should do this, then it' probably because you lack the ability to empathise with others.



Agreed, everyone has a responsibility for their safety. It doesn't matter if they're on the road, in their yard, or in the local park. Each and everyone of us is responsible for their safety.

The primary MUP in my area has a posted speed (presumably mainly for cyclists) of 20MPH. The park(s) that I ride through have one of 10MPH, not that it appears that many obey that. And sadly a lot of them don't have any sort of computer on their bike so they don't know how fast they are going.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

Bongman said:


> I disagee. From the perspective of the pedestrian, the cyclist is still a hazard, regardless of competency.
> 
> "Competent cyclists do not pose a *risk* to pedestrians" would be closer, but still not entirely true. Something unplanned still might happen, even if travelling the same speed (or slower) than the pedestrians.
> 
> But I see the point your trying to make



Exactly, the cyclist could have an unexpected blow-out causing them to lose control of their bike, or their chain can break (I've had the master link on my chain break more than once and I do an excellent job of maintaining my bike(s)), a cable can break, or they can hit a pot hole and have their fork or wheel bend on them.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Oh so you haven't seen the big mamma video?



I was talking about the parks that I ride through on a daily basis.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Not entirely, if a parent allows their child(ren) to run wild in the park with little to no supervision than it is the parent's fault if their child(ren) is/are injured. Yes, children are and should be safe in a park. But there are things within most if not all parks that present a danger to children.
> 
> As an example, there is usually some sort of storage shed for supplies for the maintenance of the park. If a parent takes their child(ren) to a park and let's them run wild and they end up getting into the shed and poisoning themselves who is responsible? The parent or the park management?
> 
> ...



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


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Exactly, the cyclist could have an unexpected blow-out causing them to lose control of their bike, or their chain can break (I've had the master link on my chain break more than once and I do an excellent job of maintaining my bike(s)), a cable can break, or they can hit a pot hole and have their fork or wheel bend on them.



in this case it is an accident.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Exactly, the cyclist could have an unexpected blow-out causing them to lose control of their bike, or their chain can break (I've had the master link on my chain break more than once and I do an excellent job of maintaining my bike(s)), a cable can break, or they can hit a pot hole and have their fork or wheel bend on them.


And you could be struck by lightening, have a heart attack. Better stay indoors and seal the doors, hide all medication and sharp objects. Turn off the gas and electric and pray!


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> And you could be struck by lightening, have a heart attack. Better stay indoors and seal the doors, hide all medication and sharp objects. Turn off the gas and electric and pray!



maybe we are taking too much caffeine? we seem to be very anxious about something that doesn't happen regularly and argue about it that it will be a matter of time before it happens. 
* Well the End of the World is coming. Its just a matter of time.*


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

DC and Jonny Blade seem to have the issues. The rest of us are just wondering what planet they live on.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> DC and Jonny Blade seem to have the issues. The rest of us are just wondering what planet they live on.



+1 in a different dimension?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484428"]
I'm not. Public forum where people have their opinions. You may or may not disagree with this but please don't speak for the rest of us.
[/quote]
I am sorry. I should have said "based on the posts most of us are......"


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am sorry. I should have said "based on the posts most of us are......"


----------



## locker (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am sorry. I should have said "based on the posts most of us are......"



My My! you lot still up, time for bed now the bullying should have stopped at going home time from school


----------



## benb (1 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> My My! you lot still up, time for bed now the bullying should have stopped at going home time from school



What bullying?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> What bullying?


For Bullying read disagreement


----------



## mangaman (1 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> DC and Jonny Blade seem to have the issues. The rest of us are just wondering what planet they live on.




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.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Nice summary.
> 
> Children enjoy running around parks.
> 
> ...


I would find it hard to agree with you more!


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Aug 2011)

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 (2 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> I agree rowan.
> 
> That's why there should be a hierarchy of provision.
> 
> ...



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 (2 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Fair point.
> 
> I think we mean the same.
> 
> ...



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 (2 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

[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 (2 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> *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 (2 Aug 2011)

[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 (2 Aug 2011)

[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 (2 Aug 2011)

[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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


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



I think that answers many questions then.


----------



## tongskie01 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> +1
> 
> If the cyclist couldn't stop in time they were going to fast.



+2


----------



## Tommi (2 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> 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
> 
> ...


----------



## rowan 46 (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

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 (2 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> 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.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> 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
> 
> ...


eh? I take it that this is a wind-up........


----------



## tongskie01 (2 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> eh? I take it that this is a wind-up........



+1


----------



## benb (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> 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.



Wrong. Cyclists have less right to be on a shared use path than pedestrians. Pedestrians have priority, and it's your responsibility as a cyclist to avoid them, not their responsibility to avoid you. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

No idea what your idiotic comment about picking flowers has to do with anything. I was saying that all of the points about shared use paths in parks also apply to shared use paths in other places.


----------



## mcr (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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.



Yes, but that's what's wrong with the practice. Either paint a white line down the middle and give it some legal (or at least educative) thwack, or don't bother with the white line and we, as cyclists, know to act accordingly. Why do councils etc waste so much white paint? Your original video showed such a path, hence I thought that this was germane to the argument.


----------



## mcr (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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.



Your selective quote missed the bit where locker said 'to be on a cycle path', etc. In other words, he's surely talking about the legal right of 'being' (if we're not getting too existential) on such a piece of tarmac, not talking about rights of 'behaviour' on said paths (at least, that's how I read it).


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> Your selective quote missed the bit where locker said 'to be on a cycle path', etc. In other words, he's surely talking about the legal right of 'being' (if we're not getting too existential) on such a piece of tarmac, not talking about rights of 'behaviour' on said paths (at least, that's how I read it).




thank you


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> Your selective quote missed the bit where locker said 'to be on a cycle path', etc. In other words, he's surely talking about the legal right of 'being' (if we're not getting too existential) on such a piece of tarmac, not talking about rights of 'behaviour' on said paths (at least, that's how I read it).



What he said was:



> All cyclists have as much right as pedestrians, to be on a cycle path,lane,track *if it`s shared* .



Disregarding for a moment the remedial class punctuation, the bit I've put in bold is the bit I had an issue with, which is why I addressed it in the post you've quoted. I read it differently from you, given that it wasn't too long before the post in question that we were talking about behaviour on paths.


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Wrong. Cyclists have less right to be on a shared use path than pedestrians. Pedestrians have priority, and it's your responsibility as a cyclist to avoid them, not their responsibility to avoid you. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> No idea what your idiotic comment about picking flowers has to do with anything. I was saying that all of the points about shared use paths in parks also apply to shared use paths in other places.



Rhythm Thief mentioned the picking of flowers I just thought you were reading all the posts. cyclists have equal rights as pedestrians to be on a shared use path & yes peds do have priority

so where do you get that cyclists have less rights to be on a shared use path? I can`t find it anywhere 
as some of you have pointed out I need to learn & improve my riding but I can`t just take anyones word for it (and I can`t find anywhere about a Zombie picking flowers either)


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Aug 2011)

We don't have fewer rights to be *on* a shared use path. But what we do have is a greater responsibility once we're there, as the vehicles that bring the danger to the environment. Pedestrians have the right to wander around as they please (like it or not  ) and we as cyclists have to accommodate that. If that means slowing down until we wobble just to pass a pedestrian who may not have seen us, tough.


----------



## benb (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Rhythm Thief mentioned the picking of flowers I just thought you were reading all the posts. cyclists have equal rights as pedestrians to be on a shared use path & yes peds do have priority
> 
> so where do you get that cyclists have less rights to be on a shared use path? I can`t find it anywhere
> as some of you have pointed out *I need to learn & improve my riding* but I can`t just take anyones word for it (and I can`t find anywhere about a Zombie picking flowers either)




You can start by stopping referring to pedestrians as zombies. It's rather offensive.
When I said less rights, I obviously meant lower priority. Stop splitting hairs.

So, cyclists have a right to be on a shared path, but only as long as they ride it safely and appropriately. Is that better?


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> What he said was:
> 
> 
> 
> Disregarding for a moment the remedial class punctuation, the bit I've put in bold is the bit I had an issue with, which is why I addressed it in the post you've quoted. I read it differently from you, given that it wasn't too long before the post in question that we were talking about behaviour on paths.



Bully, I`m off back to my remedial class, but just before I go, if you`re having such a problem with understanding then you better come back to the remedial with me


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> You can start by stopping referring to pedestrians as zombies. It's rather offensive.
> When I said less rights, I obviously meant lower priority. Stop splitting hairs.
> 
> So, cyclists have a right to be on a shared path, but only as long as they ride it safely and appropriately. Is that better?




Yes thats better, no more Zombies


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Oh Rhythm Thief - Stop picking on poor locker. He can't run you over so he is upset and scared.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Aug 2011)

he might have a point. If he's willing to learn I'm happy to apologise for being a bit heavy handed. It just didn't look that way earlier in the thread ...


----------



## benb (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> he might have a point. *If he's willing to learn* I'm happy to apologise for being a bit heavy handed. It just didn't look that way earlier in the thread ...



I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Aug 2011)

The tone of his posts has changed recently though ...


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484482"]
No we don't. Case law dictates this. The fact that we are on a bike and peds are walking means they have ultimate priority- always. Especially. In. Parks. And. On. Shared. User. Paths.

I don't see how I or anyone else can make it any clearer.
[/quote]


you haven`t made it any clearer - rights/priority two different words, two different meanings


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I'm not holding my breath.



You cynic


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> he might have a point. If he's willing to learn I'm happy to apologise for being a bit heavy handed. It just didn't look that way earlier in the thread ...



Oh come on as soon as anyone disagrees with him and calls him on something he says he calls it bullying! A rather strange attitude from someone who posts videos of him knocking people down.


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The tone of his posts has changed recently though ...




come on now at least someone is getting friendly, I am what I am, I can`t change what I have done but I can change what I do

I could put all my recent vids on youtube of how I am riding now & show everyone how I`ve improved but they will be so boring

not only that I really don`t need to prove anything to anyone only myself

if i`m wrong I won`t dwell on it

It`s alway better to tell someone off in 30 secs. rather than 5 minutes as it makes them bitter


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh come on as soon as anyone disagrees with him and calls him on something he says he calls it bullying! A rather strange attitude from someone who posts videos of him knocking people down.




It was going so well without you


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh come on as soon as anyone disagrees with him and calls him on something he says he calls it bullying! A rather strange attitude from someone who posts videos of him knocking people down.




Dear, dear , dear, so Mr Angry, calm down & have some


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Dear, dear , dear, so Mr Angry, calm down & have some



I would love to think you have changed I really would. Since our opinion of you was born from your videos maybe posting some new ones showing how your riding has improved could be the answer. 

I would be delighted to see you ride slowly past pedestrians as you give a wave and a smile.


----------



## locker (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would love to think you have changed I really would. Since our opinion of you was born from your videos maybe posting some new ones showing how your riding has improved could be the answer.
> 
> I would be delighted to see you ride slowly past pedestrians as you give a wave and a smile.



if thats a offer of a extended hand I will do as soon as I have sorted them out


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> if thats a offer of a extended hand I will do as soon as I have sorted them out



It is indeed. If you have changed than I am happy to change my opinion of you.


----------



## AmericanWoman (2 Aug 2011)

Here in Vancouver, there is a war against cyclist. Ped and Cars vs Cyclist. As a new cyclist I was a bit put-off by the fact that I must ride in the street or face a fine. I'm scared of those cars! I'm slowly starting to get used to it but in a big city I know it's inevitable that I will be hit by a car. I've already had a few close calls. Also as a pedestrian in this city, it's annoying to have people on bikes try to mow you down. While in a car, many cyclist refuse to obey traffic rules. It has been a real pain in that regards but we must find some way to coexist peacefully.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

AmericanWoman said:


> Here in Vancouver, there is a war against cyclist. Ped and Cars vs Cyclist. As a new cyclist I was a bit put-off by the fact that I must ride in the street or face a fine. I'm scared of those cars! I'm slowly starting to get used to it but in a big city I know it's inevitable that I will be hit by a car. I've already had a few close calls. Also as a pedestrian in this city, it's annoying to have people on bikes try to mow you down. While in a car, many cyclist refuse to obey traffic rules. It has been a real pain in that regards but we must find some way to coexist peacefully.



Is cycle coaching available. Someone who can teach defensive cycling?


----------



## mcr (2 Aug 2011)

AmericanWoman said:


> While in a car, many cyclist refuse to obey traffic rules.



I presume you mean when *you* are in a car you see cyclists not obeying traffic rules. (Sorry, pedant's my middle name.)

Anyway, I thought Vancouver was one of North America's few dream cycling cities - it's even (in the context of this thread) got the brilliant Seawall, where cyclists and pedestrians are segregated and everyone's happy (or so it seemed on my visit a couple of years ago)!


----------



## AmericanWoman (2 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> I presume you mean when *you* are in a car you see cyclists not obeying traffic rules. (Sorry, pedant's my middle name.)
> 
> Anyway, I thought Vancouver was one of North America's few dream cycling cities - it's even (in the context of this thread) got the brilliant Seawall, where cyclists and pedestrians are segregated and everyone's happy (or so it seemed on my visit a couple of years ago)!



The politicians goals are to reduce car usage and get more people cycling and walking. Great goals mind you, but a lot of people are very upset that the city is putting in cycling lanes in crowded city streets. Change doesn't come easily I suppose. You are right, though, Canada is a much better cycling country than the USA. It's pretty dangerous being a cyclist in most places in the states. At least here, you get some kind of support.


----------



## AmericanWoman (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Is cycle coaching available. Someone who can teach defensive cycling?



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


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

AmericanWoman said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

[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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Fair point.
> 
> I think we mean the same.
> 
> ...



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 (2 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

[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 (2 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> 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 (2 Aug 2011)

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


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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.



Agreed, but if a child is playing between two parked cars and runs out into the path of a car it isn't the drivers fault. As even slow speed crashes can be painful or cause significant injuries.

As a child my brother was hit head on by a slow moving car going up a hill and around a curve. He rode up on the hood (bonnet) of the car hitting his head on the windshield. As a result he got a large bump on his forehead and had pushed several teeth back up. Again the driver of the car was going slow probably no more then 10 or so MPH. But my brother was still transported to the hospital.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.


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


----------



## Tommi (2 Aug 2011)

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?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


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



Pedestrian (at least to me) implies that one is walking or running, if one is sitting on their arse playing tiddly winks on a bike/multi use/shared path they are *NOT* a "pedestrian," they are a danger to themselves and all those who are trying to use said bike/multi use/shared path.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, but if a child is playing between two parked cars and runs out into the path of a car it isn't the drivers fault. As even slow speed crashes can be painful or cause significant injuries.
> 
> As a child my brother was hit head on by a slow moving car going up a hill and around a curve. He rode up on the hood (bonnet) of the car hitting his head on the windshield. As a result he got a large bump on his forehead and had pushed several teeth back up. Again the driver of the car was going slow probably no more then 10 or so MPH. But my brother was still transported to the hospital.


No it would be classed as a non fault inncident.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


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



Agreed, and that includes pedestrians that suddenly stop or change direction with no warning. If a pedestrian causes a crash by their actions then they need to take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## rowan 46 (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


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



not necessarily it just means that someone has agreed to differ. which is perfectly acceptable in a free society. Britain and the us shares much common ground culturally, but there are differences it seems. The us was founded on the principles of individual liberty and hence individual responsibility each law is tested in the courts to ensure it does not interfere in that principle. Britain has a different mindset on the states responsibility and consequently a different take on its laws


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> +1
> 
> If the cyclist couldn't stop in time they were going to fast.



She was walking faster than I was riding, as I said in another reply I was only going about 5 or 6MPH. And again she *HIT* me, I did *NOT* hit her. We both apologized and continued on our separate ways.

I also if I remember correctly had a cop that was at one end of the street blocking it off wave me into the area. Therefore I was authorized to be in that area. Had the cop stopped me from entering I would have found a different route.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> 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.



Thank you, that is all that I have been trying to say.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> How dangerous is a pedestrian-pedestrian collision?



Probably nil, or next to nil as not to be worth talking about. Unless one is running and the other is walking. Then that changes everything.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Pedestrian (at least to me) implies that one is walking or running, if one is sitting on their arse playing tiddly winks on a bike/multi use/shared path they are *NOT* a "pedestrian," they are a danger to themselves and all those who are trying to use said bike/multi use/shared path.


What an idiotic statemen . You are a very strange individual indeed.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (2 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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



Agreed, and as in this case the pedestrian who caused the crash is responsible. Had the pedestrian who crashed into your Aunt, been acting in a safe and *PREDICTABLE* manner the crash wouldn't have occurred.


----------



## benb (2 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, and that includes pedestrians that suddenly stop or change direction with no warning. If a pedestrian causes a crash by their actions then they need to take responsibility for their actions.



No, because you should be giving them enough room to be able to do that. If, by the pedestrian suddenly changing direction, there is a collision, you were passing too close to them.

Now, if a pedestrian hid behind a bush and leapt into your path, that would be different. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484545"]
Ah, point of note here. It doesn't matter whether you agree or don't agree. You're wrong. Feel free to carry on disagreeing with the current situation.


Now I'm afraid you're going a bit bonkers. In that scenario, if you're a stationary cyclist then the pedestrian has run into you. If you ride into a pedestrian or a toddler, that's your action for which you're entirely responsible.

Why are you having to use extreme scenarios to try to argue that pedestrians can't wander on paths?
[/quote]
Maybe he has never heard the expression "When you are in a hole, stop digging"


----------



## benb (2 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Maybe he has never heard the expression "When you are in a hole, stop digging"



Or "when you're on a path crowded with pedestrians, stop cycling"


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Or "when you're on a path crowded with pedestrians, stop cycling"


Maybe it's the "might is right" mentality!


----------



## JonnyBlade (2 Aug 2011)

Spent a while checking and you were right, the last point I made was as you suspected ......... bollocks!!! Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways 

I stand by everything else though that I have said on this 'closed' arguement


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> No, because you should be giving them enough room to be able to do that. If, by the pedestrian suddenly changing direction, there is a collision, you were passing too close to them.
> 
> Now, if a pedestrian hid behind a bush and leapt into your path, that would be different. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.





[media]
]View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M[/media]



this was one I made in Oct.2010 when a ped (young girl) leap out in front of me but not from behind a bush, stopped in time but not upright, before you say anything this is a shared pathway

[media]
]View: http://youtu.be/iiHbOlAV7vg[/media]



Or maybe this one above when I was brutally attacked by a ped


----------



## rowan 46 (3 Aug 2011)

View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M

first well done for not hitting her, I also have to say that your idea of a slow safe speed around pedestrians is a lot faster than mine. I am typically going around walking speed if pedestrians are around. If I am in a hurry I use the roads. I hope you were not hurt by the way? when coming up to blind corners and things I tend to move away from them adopting a primary like position, thus giving them and you (me ) a chance to see and be seen.


----------



## rowan 46 (3 Aug 2011)

Just seen your second vid brutally attacked, that was better riding didn't see much wrong there


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M
> 
> first well done for not hitting her, I also have to say that your idea of a slow safe speed around pedestrians is a lot faster than mine. I am typically going around walking speed if pedestrians are around. If I am in a hurry I use the roads. I hope you were not hurt by the way? when coming up to blind corners and things I tend to move away from them adopting a primary like position, thus giving them and you (me ) a chance to see and be seen.




The floor was wet from the fountain & I didn`t notice it but I pass that way twice a week & slower with eyes open


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Just seen your second vid brutally attacked, that was better riding didn't see much wrong there



But she could have jumped on me


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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.



Even though on my daily ride through the parks that I ride through I see a number pedestrians that qualify as a "zombie" i.e. they've got their eyes glued to their cell/mobile phone, or their iPod to call them a zombie is as disrespectful to all such a distracted pedestrian a zombie as it is to call motorists cagers.

Just as much as a cyclist or skateboarder or roller skater/blader has an obligation not to endanger anyone anyone else on the path whether obligated under law or not that is also true of pedestrians. A pedestrian cannot just sit down and expect that everyone behind them is going to avoid them, nor can they suddenly stop and turn around and start running in the opposite direction and blame the cyclist when/if they collide. As if the pedestrian was behaving in a predictable manner then that collision could be avoided.

<Quote>
expecting others to do your risk assessment for you isn't being safe
</Quote>

That also goes for pedestrians, to expect other path users to do their risk assessment isn't safe.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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.



Ben,

You know what change pedestrian to cyclist and cyclist to motorist in your post and that is the *EXACT* same argument that motorists use for why cyclists don't belong on the road, because the roads are for cars, not bicycles. As well as changing paths to roads.

<Quote>
<Snip>
Roads are for cars. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there.

<Snip>
Motorists should not have to modify their behaviour to accommodate cyclists; cyclists need to modify their behaviour to accommodate motorists.
</Quote>


----------



## gaz (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Ben,
> 
> You know what change pedestrian to cyclist and cyclist to motorist in your post and that is the *EXACT* same argument that motorists use for why cyclists don't belong on the road, because the roads are for cars, not bicycles. As well as changing paths to roads.
> 
> ...


A shame you overlooked the fact that the pavements are for pavements and the roads are for vehicles. So whilst motorists may argue that point, they would be wrong.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> 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).



Agreed, here (at least in St. Petersburg, Fl) there are a number of parks that the sidewalks/bike/multi use/shared paths are part of the overall sidewalk/multi use/shared path system and cyclists are using them as part of their route to commute to and from work. And there are parks as I said where bikes are prohibited from being used. And there are multi use/shared paths that not only have pavement markings clearly dividing the path into bicycle and pedestrian sides but there are also signs that reinforce that division.

And just as walkers understandably get upset when cyclists ride on their side of the path cyclists are also just as understandably upset when walkers are on the bicycle side of the path.

And correct me if I am mistaken, but share as in shared path means that everyone shares the path and no one group has priority over another group. If pedestrians have absolute right to the path and everyone else has to get out of their way, than guess what it isn't a "shared" path, it's a pedestrian path.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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.



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]


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Ben,
> 
> You know what change pedestrian to cyclist and cyclist to motorist in your post and that is the *EXACT* same argument that motorists use for why cyclists don't belong on the road, because the roads are for cars, not bicycles. As well as changing paths to roads.
> 
> ...



Not a very good argument to get your point over you may losing the battle on this one & you are not going to convince him otherwise as he has blickers on & nayyyything going to change his mind


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> 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.



Cyclists are _*NOT*_ the only only one's who are bringing the risk. Pedestrians who have their head up their 4th point of contact i.e. have their iPod plugged into their ears and at a volume that they wouldn't hear a claymore detonated behind are also bringing risk. Or pedestrians who have their eyes glued to their cell/mobile phones are the ones who are bringing the risk *NOT* the cyclist.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

AmericanWoman said:


> Here in Vancouver, there is a war against cyclist. Ped and Cars vs Cyclist. As a new cyclist I was a bit put-off by the fact that I must ride in the street or face a fine. I'm scared of those cars! I'm slowly starting to get used to it but in a big city I know it's inevitable that I will be hit by a car. I've already had a few close calls. Also as a pedestrian in this city, it's annoying to have people on bikes try to mow you down. While in a car, many cyclist refuse to obey traffic rules. It has been a real pain in that regards but we must find some way to coexist peacefully.



Agreed, it irks me to no end when I'm out riding and I am sitting there at a red light and some other cyclist comes hammering by and doesn't even slow down for the red light. Or when they're riding against the flow of traffic i.e. a salmon cyclist, or when they're riding without any lights, i.e. a ninja.

The other night I encountered two people riding double on a single bicycle. They were also riding ninja and salmon. *IF* they were to get hit by a car I would blame them more than I would the driver. Yes, the driver would still share in the fault, but the lions share would be on the shoulder of the cyclist for carrying a passenger, riding at night without lights, and against the flow of traffic.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (3 Aug 2011)

[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 (3 Aug 2011)

[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 (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 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 (3 Aug 2011)

[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 (3 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



It would seem not.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[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 (3 Aug 2011)

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 (3 Aug 2011)

[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 (3 Aug 2011)

[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 (3 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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 (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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?



Blimey. Do you apply this philosophy - "he said it was ok so I just went ahead and did it, despite what my eyes were telling me" - to everything you do? Your logic is just weird ... if someone was about to walk into me, I'd stop. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think "gee, the best option here is probably just to keep going". That's just odd.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.



With respect, this makes America sound like a crappy place to live. I know the UK has its faults (and plenty of them, too) but we haven't quite sunk this low. Yet.


----------



## mcr (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> With respect, this makes America sound like a crappy place to live. I know the UK has its faults (and plenty of them, too) but we haven't quite sunk this low. Yet.



At least we still hold to the principle (though a proportion of the population need constant reminding) that bicycles have a right to be on any road (other than motorways and a handful of designated stretches such as long tunnels) while motor vehicles, because they are deemed to be potentially dangerous pieces of machinery, only do so by licence once certain criteria have been met in terms of driver training and vehicle road-worthiness.

I must say this UK-US cultural difference makes for a fascinating if heated debate - I at least now know where I'd rather be a pedestrian!


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


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



Uh, because you were stating quite empathetically and unwaveringly that cyclists never have the same rights as pedestrians. Here in Florida that is not the case. Here in Florida if a cyclist is riding on the sidewalk/pavement they have the exact same rights as a pedestrian. The exact same rights, duties, and responsibilities as a pedestrian.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Blimey. Do you apply this philosophy - "he said it was ok so I just went ahead and did it, despite what my eyes were telling me" - to everything you do? Your logic is just weird ... if someone was about to walk into me, I'd stop. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think "gee, the best option here is probably just to keep going". That's just odd.



Where the cop was stationed and where the gal walked into me was about a 1/4 of a mile or more away and around a curve well out of my sight. With no easy way to get out of it, once I was there.

Should I slow down so much that I can't make any headway at all?

Again, you do know that it is possible for the driver of a car or the operator of a bicycle to do everything right and still end up getting in a crash.

Had I had x-ray vision and had been able to see around the curve I probably would have taken a different route. I do not however have x-ray vision, or a magic crystal ball or any other way to see around a curve that is a 1/4 or better away from where I am interacting with a cop.

Have you never found yourself in a situation where when you started that it was clear and than all of a sudden without warning you were surrounded by a crowd of people? If you haven't then you are one lucky person.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> With respect, this makes America sound like a crappy place to live. I know the UK has its faults (and plenty of them, too) but we haven't quite sunk this low. Yet.



That is just one out of 50 states. In most if not all other states they have (the states) have bestowed the same rights, duties, and responsibilities as the operator of any motor vehicle.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 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.


It's not crazy. It's called "civilization". A civilized society is set up so that we no longer have to waste huge amounts of energy watching out for wild animals and nutters that might want to eat or kill us. Our civilized public spaces are supposed to minimize risk to the individual, and for that we have to give up some freedoms, such as the freedom to take risks with other people's safety.

A public space full of civilized pedestrians has very little risk. When you introduce a bicycle into that space, the risk is increased, so it's reasonable to expect the user of that bicycle to be careful, and for the user of that bicycle to take responsiblity when things do go wrong.

When you introduce a motor vehicle into that space, then the risk increases enormously, so the same principle should apply to the user of that motor vehicle.



rowan 46 said:


> 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.


Actually, that isn't true. We do not currently have presumed liability here, although we should have because of the argument I made above. At the moment, the onus is on the pedestrian to demonstrate (on the balance of probabilities if it's a civil case) that the cyclist was negligent. As it happens, that is often not too difficult, because they probably were negligent.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484585"]
The correct action would be to stop.
[/quote]

How many times do I have to say that even if I had stopped that she still would have hit my handlebars? Plus IIRC there were now people also coming up from behind me. Had I stopped one or more of them would have walked into me from behind.

Also how many times do I have say that a person can do everything right and still end up in a crash/accident? Also as I just clarified in another post when I first entered that area it was clear as well as there was a cop directing traffic, who's post was about a 1/4 or so mile away and around a curve that gave me the all clear to go ahead. And had I'd been able to see around the curve from a 1/4 or so mile away and had been able to see everyone that could possible crossing paths with me I would have chosen a different route.

Based on the information that I had at the time and despite what you might think, I think that I made the right choice. However knowing what I now know after the fact I would have chosen a different route, if it would have been practical to do so. Or are you going to tell me that I should go miles out of my way in order to avoid an area that I might or might not come into conflict with other road users, and unlike most of your examples this is a public road the only difference is that every other day it is open to *ALL* users.


----------



## Dan B (3 Aug 2011)

Yes, I find it amusing that the legal system based on individual liberties and responsibilities is the one with the jaywalking laws, and the system which grew haphazardly out of a feudal monarchy is the one where citizens subjects still have the right to pass and repass on the Queen's Highway.

I'd find it a lot less amusing if I lived in the US, of course.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484586"]
So you're making claims about killer cyclists that you're not qualified to make.
[/quote]

Sorry, no I have read about other incidents where a pedestrian has been either severally injured or killed in another forum that I am a member of. Such as a case in Pa where a (I think) para-legal was struck by a cyclist and as a result died, there was another case (I forget the city/state) where an elderly person was struck by a cyclist and as a result of her fall she died. I don't have the exact numbers, I don't even know if the NTSB has the exact numbers. But it does happen.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484587"]
No. The correct thing to do is for cyclists to minimise the hazard that they present.
[/quote]

No, the correct thing is for all users of the infrastructure to do so in a safe, responsible and predictable manner. And if it is a "shared" path then *ALL* users may use it equally with no one group given priority over any other group. If one group is given priority over another group than it isn't really a "shared" path.

As I've been taught that shared means all are equal, not that one group has priority.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Ben,
> 
> Roads are for cars. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there.



In this country Cyclist have freedom of the highway. In essence it means they have a greater right to be on roads than cars.


----------



## Tommi (3 Aug 2011)

Anyone?


Tommi said:


> 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?






Tommi said:


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


...and do bicycles even have priority anywhere in UK?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Anyone?
> ...and do bicycles even have priority anywhere in UK?


Bicycles have priority under much the same conditions that motor vehicles have. Exceptions include motorways and some roads that are designated "no cycling" under a Traffic Regulation Order.

See my earlier reply regarding presumed liability.

Bicycles have "exclusive use" of mandatory cycles lanes that are on the main carriageway and indicated by a solid white line. However, even there cyclists are expected to be careful of pedestrians. This is not about priority, it is about common decency and reasonable behaviour, which is how the courts would normally see it.


----------



## Mad at urage (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.


I'm glad I live in a country where I can walk across the street just where and when I feel like it.
PS. As a car driver and cyclist, I am perfectly happy to take care not to hit pedestrians who are exercising that right. I will cuss out teenagers (who should know better) who deliberately jump into the road to make me stop, but it is my responsibility to STOP.


Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.





Digital_Cowboy said:


> *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 e_ven 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.


_But you didn't, 'cos you wanted to "make headway". That is irresponsible cycling_.


Digital_Cowboy said:


> If I had stopped she still would have walked into me. An_d 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.


_No you didn't, you did not stop_


Digital_Cowboy said:


> How many times do I have to say that even if I had stopped that she still would have hit my handlebars? _Plus IIRC there were now people also coming up from behind me._ Had I stopped* one or more of them would have walked into me from behind.*
> 
> Also how many times do I have say that a person can do everything right and still end up in a crash/accident? Also as I just clarified in another post when I first entered that area it was clear as well as there was a cop directing traffic, who's post was about a 1/4 or so mile away and around a curve that gave me the all clear to go ahead. And had I'd been able to see around the curve from a 1/4 or so mile away and had been able to see everyone that could possible crossing paths with me I would have chosen a different route.
> 
> Based on the information that I had at the time and despite what you might think, I think that I made the right choice. However knowing what I now know after the fact I would have chosen a different route, if it would have been practical to do so. Or are you going to tell me that I should go miles out of my way in order to avoid an area that I might or might not come into conflict with other road users, and unlike most of your examples this is a public road the only difference is that every other day it is open to *ALL* users.


_This is new!! So you suddenly remember these people "walking" up behind you?_
*Re. All of the bolded text:* Some discrepancy here surely? The "gal walked" into him - faster than he was going, and the people who were suddenly catching up frombehind would have "walked" into hi, yet he was going at 5 - 6 mph and couldn't stop?
Some real good speed-walkers over the pond there!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> I'm glad I live in a country where I can walk across the street just where and when I feel like it.
> PS. As a car driver and cyclist, I am perfectly happy to take care not to hit pedestrians who are exercising that right. I will cuss out teenagers (who should know better) who deliberately jump into the road to make me stop, but it is my responsibility to STOP.
> 
> 
> ...



DC is simply one those cyclists who believes that he has a god given right to cycle where he wants, when he wants. I hate people like that.


----------



## Tommi (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> See my earlier reply regarding presumed liability.


There are 455 earlier comments, could you be little more specific?




MrHappyCyclist said:


> Bicycles have priority under much the same conditions that motor vehicles have. Exceptions include motorways and some roads that are designated "no cycling" under a Traffic Regulation Order.
> 
> 
> Bicycles have "exclusive use" of mandatory cycles lanes that are on the main carriageway and indicated by a solid white line. However, even there cyclists are expected to be careful of pedestrians. This is not about priority, it is about common decency and reasonable behaviour, which is how the courts would normally see it.


Let me rephrase.. If bicycle or car enters an area that is exclusively for pedestrian use they'll get sanctioned, and if there is a conflict they are at fault. When a pedestrian enters an area that exclusively for bicycles there are no consequences for them, and the cyclists would *still* be at fault? Did I get the idea of "exclusive" use correct?

Common decency and reasonable behaviour would suggest pedestrians are to look after other shared path users but based on the discussion here that doesn't seem to apply to pedestrians. Makes me wonder how can oblivious behaviour ever be considered responsible as by definition you can't know it's not another pedestrian but a cyclist you're causing conflict with if you didn't look. (And no, you can't rely on children behaving expectedly.)


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> No, the correct thing is for all users of the infrastructure to do so in a safe, responsible and predictable manner. And if it is a "shared" path then *ALL* users may use it equally with no one group given priority over any other group. If one group is given priority over another group that it isn't really a "shared" path.
> 
> As I've been taught that shared means all are equal, not that one group has priority.



I think you`re on a loser with this as even some States, I believe, may have different laws for cyclists as we do the the UK some countys (could be called States) have some different by-laws to each other.
Even I agree that pedestrians have priority but disagree that they have no responsibily, everyone has a responsibily to be safe & make sure they do not carry out anything that may endanger other people

If one group is given priority over another group on a shared then its still a shared path, it is not a shared path when only one group can use it.

It doesn`t matter what you have been taught or been told, can you be sure the person teaching or telling you is right


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Let me rephrase.. If bicycle or car enters an area that is exclusively for pedestrian use they'll get sanctioned, and if there is a conflict they are at fault. When a pedestrian enters an area that exclusively for bicycles there are no consequences for them, and the cyclists would *still* be at fault? Did I get the idea of "exclusive" use correct?
> 
> Common decency and reasonable behaviour would suggest pedestrians are to look after other shared path users but based on the discussion here that doesn't seem to apply to pedestrians. Makes me wonder how can oblivious behaviour ever be considered responsible as by definition you can't know it's not another pedestrian but a cyclist you're causing conflict with if you didn't look. (And no, you can't rely on children behaving expectedly.)



I think if a pedestrian stepped into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there was no possibility of avoiding a collision, the cyclist would not be at fault (assuming they were cycling at a reasonable speed for the road). The same would apply to a motor vehicle, again if they were under the speed limit.

If a pedestrian steps into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there *is* time to avoid them, but the cyclist rides into them anyway, then the cyclist is at fault.

Pedestrians have the right to cross the road where they want, but obviously shouldn't go throwing themselves into moving traffic.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> There are 455 earlier comments, could you be little more specific?


Oops, sorry, I meant this one.



Tommi said:


> Let me rephrase.. If bicycle or car enters an area that is exclusively for pedestrian use they'll get sanctioned, and if there is a conflict they are at fault. When a pedestrian enters an area that exclusively for bicycles there are no consequences for them, and the cyclists would *still* be at fault? Did I get the idea of "exclusive" use correct?


Ah, OK, I guess the answer, then, is that there are indeed no places that are exclusively for the use of bicycles. (At least not in any way that absolves them of responsibility.)



Tommi said:


> Common decency and reasonable behaviour would suggest pedestrians are to look after other shared path users but based on the discussion here that doesn't seem to apply to pedestrians. Makes me wonder how can oblivious behaviour ever be considered responsible as by definition you can't know it's not another pedestrian but a cyclist you're causing conflict with if you didn't look. (And no, you can't rely on children behaving expectedly.)


Again, it comes down, IMHO, to the points that I made in the earlier post. The person bringing the greater risk to the space should be prepared to take the bulk of the responsibility.


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I think you`re on a loser with this as even some States, I believe, may have different laws for cyclists as we do the the UK some countys (could be called States) have some different by-laws to each other.
> Even I agree that pedestrians have priority but disagree that they have no responsibily, *everyone has a responsibily to be safe & make sure they do not carry out anything that may endanger other people*
> 
> If one group is given priority over another group on a shared then its still a shared path, it is not a shared path when only one group can use it.
> ...



You mean like not making sure you give a pedestrian enough room and pass them at a safe speed?

The default position is that paths are for pedestrians. If they wander around erratically they're not much of a danger to each other. The risk is tiny.
Cyclists are allowed to use the paths, as long as they do not increase the risks to pedestrians that they already pose to each other.

Cyclists are bringing the risk, so it is for cyclists to modify their behaviour to minimise that risk, not for the pedestrians to modify theirs. If a pedestrian suddenly changes direction without looking and you collide with them, then you were too close or too fast.

The only situation where I can imagine a collision being unavoidable is if the pedestrian deliberately hurls themselves into the path of the bicycle from behind a tree or something.


----------



## rowan 46 (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> It's not crazy. It's called "civilization". A civilized society is set up so that we no longer have to waste huge amounts of energy watching out for wild animals and nutters that might want to eat or kill us. Our civilized public spaces are supposed to minimize risk to the individual, and for that we have to give up some freedoms, such as the freedom to take risks with other people's safety.
> 
> A public space full of civilized pedestrians has very little risk. When you introduce a bicycle into that space, the risk is increased, so it's reasonable to expect the user of that bicycle to be careful, and for the user of that bicycle to take responsiblity when things do go wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> You mean like not making sure you give a pedestrian enough room and pass them at a safe speed? *We all make mistakes*
> 
> The default position is that paths are for pedestrians. If they wander around erratically they're not much of a danger to each other. The risk is tiny.
> Cyclists are allowed to use the paths, as long as they do not increase the risks to pedestrians that they already pose to each other. *Not much in agruing with you on this as you have still got your blinkers on.*
> ...



Glad you are starting to change some of the things you stated at the start of the thread, a few pages more & you`ll never know where you are, what you have written, asking yourself "did I really write that"


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

> The only situation where I can imagine a collision being unavoidable is if the pedestrian deliberately hurls *carelessly doesn`t look where they are* *going & hurls* themselves into the path of the bicycle _*from behind a tree or something*_. *It happens*





locker said:


> Glad you are starting to change some of the things you stated at the start of the thread, a few pages more & you`ll never know where you are, what you have written, asking yourself "did I really write that"


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Glad you are starting to change some of the things you stated at the start of the thread, a few pages more & you`ll never know where you are, what you have written, asking yourself "did I really write that"



Now you're just deliberately being retarded, and you dare accuse me of having blinkers on!

You can disagree all you like, but legally and morally, it is the cyclists responsibility to avoid pedestrians, taking into account the fact that they can and do behave unpredictably.

I don't think I've really changed much of what I wrote, except saying "minimise risk" instead of "not pose a hazard".
My point stands, that paths are primarily for pedestrians, and we cannot and should not expect them to check over their shoulder every time they change direction.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I think if a pedestrian stepped into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there was no possibility of avoiding a collision, the cyclist would not be at fault (assuming they were cycling at a reasonable speed for the road). The same would apply to a motor vehicle, again if they were under the speed limit.
> 
> If a pedestrian steps into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there *is* time to avoid them, but the cyclist rides into them anyway, then the cyclist is at fault.
> 
> Pedestrians have the right to cross the road where they want, but obviously shouldn't go throwing themselves into moving traffic.



In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.



True. That doesn't mean they can or should jump into moving traffic though!

It does annoy me that we have come to the situation where pedestrians are expected to only cross at pedestrian crossings. They are there because it's the only way to force traffic to stop, not because that is the only place a pedestrian should cross.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.


Pedestrians always have right of way on a public road. I think you mean priority.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> True. That doesn't mean they can or should jump into moving traffic though!
> 
> It does annoy me that we have come to the situation where pedestrians are expected to only cross at pedestrian crossings. They are there because it's the only way to force traffic to stop, not because that is the only place a pedestrian should cross.



Ben, please don't get me wrong. If a pedestrian steps straight out into a 60mph road then they are asking for trouble. The law does not protect against death. There is a ped right of way along a 60mph bypass road near me and I think it is a suicide route. No one has been killed there yet but that is because to my knowledge it is not used!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Pedestrians always have right of way on a public road. I think you mean priority.



Er yes I do mean priority. Slap on the wrist for me!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Was there going to be a response to the quoted post?


----------



## rowan 46 (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> It's not crazy. It's called "civilization". A civilized society is set up so that we no longer have to waste huge amounts of energy watching out for wild animals and nutters that might want to eat or kill us. Our civilized public spaces are supposed to minimize risk to the individual, and for that we have to give up some freedoms, such as the freedom to take risks with other people's safety.
> 
> A public space full of civilized pedestrians has very little risk. When you introduce a bicycle into that space, the risk is increased, so it's reasonable to expect the user of that bicycle to be careful, and for the user of that bicycle to take responsiblity when things do go wrong.
> 
> ...


I said that it sounds crazy, not that it was crazy. I am not sure that I agree with your implication that the USA is uncivilised but I take your point about presumed liability. I misspoke myself so consequently it came out as rubbish. I still feel that for a pedestrian on a shared path it it would be wise of them to show increased awareness but agree they are under no obligation to do so.


----------



## rowan 46 (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Was there going to be a response to the quoted post?



sorry about that my connection appears to be playing up


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> sorry about that my connection appears to be playing up



No worries


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?


----------



## GrasB (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo, you didn't just get an email from IAM did you? 

I'm referring to this IAM poll


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?



I quite like the idea, but they would have to be mercilessly enforced, and have a big education programme promoted too.


----------



## Dan B (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?


It's been tried a couple of times: google for "naked streets" or "shared streets". I am not altogether convinced it works as well as its proponents says: the average taxi driver at Seven Dials in my experience tends to put his foot down and gun the engine rather than make eye contact and amicably negotiate priority with the pedestrians in his path, but perhaps it just needs to be backed up with legislation that makes "scaring the shoot out of people" an arrestable offence


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?





benb said:


> I quite like the idea, but they would have to be mercilessly enforced, and have a big education programme promoted too.


I felt the following statement was pretty typical of the British "way":


> In the United Kingdom, similar areas are known as home zones, but do not enjoy similar protection in law.


----------



## Dan B (3 Aug 2011)

Actually, one example that comes to mind of where "shared spaces" really do work is in pedestrianised areas which have banned through traffic but to in which vehicles are allowed for access/deliveries. Perhaps that's the real underlying distinction here: between people who want to be where they are, and people who want to be somewhere else and see everything from here to there as an obstacle to be negotiated


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I quite like the idea, but they would have to be mercilessly enforced, and have a big education programme promoted too.



That was basically my response on the I.A.M poll from which I learned about them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Actually, one example that comes to mind of where "shared spaces" really do work is in pedestrianised areas which have banned through traffic but to in which vehicles are allowed for access/deliveries. Perhaps that's the real underlying distinction here: between people who want to be where they are, and people who want to be somewhere else and see everything from here to there as an obstacle to be negotiated



That is a very interesting point indeed.


----------



## Norm (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Or when they're riding against the flow of traffic i.e. a salmon cyclist...


Not meaning to interrupt or detract from the discussion, but what a great phrase! Salmon cyclist. Love it.


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Now you're *I`m *just deliberately being retarded *sensible*, and you *I* dare accuse me *you *of having blinkers on!
> 
> You can disagree all you like, but legally and morally, it is the cyclists *everyones* responsibility to *act safely *avoid pedestrians, taking into account the fact that they  *the human being* can and do behave unpredictably.
> 
> ...


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484615"]
I've never known of a pedestrian do this locker. Have you?

I've seen a couple of examples of a cyclist deliberately career into a pedestrian though...
[/quote]


Damn! Can`t find that ignore button - where the hell is it?


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

[media]
]View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M[/media]


----------



## Mad at urage (3 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> It's been tried a couple of times: google for "naked streets" or "shared streets". I am not altogether convinced it works as well as its proponents says: the average taxi driver at Seven Dials in my experience tends to put his foot down and gun the engine rather than make eye contact and amicably negotiate priority with the pedestrians in his path, but perhaps it just needs to be backed up with *legislation that makes "scaring the shoot out of people" an arrestable offence
> *



This *legislation *already exists, it's called assault (_an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact)_.

Getting it enforced now, that's a different thing!


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


>



Grow up.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> [media]
> ]View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M[/media]




You say you were going slow. It does not look like it. Can the engine be disengaged from the bike? If so I suggest doing so whilst in areas such as that. Also you seem to have terrible bike control. Why did you fall over?


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> [media]
> ]View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M[/media]




You shouldn't have cut so close to the corner - you couldn't see properly round it. You were lucky no-one was hurt.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> [media]
> ]View: http://youtu.be/CNa_AQ5o51M[/media]



You were going a little fast given the slippery surface, the pedestrians to your right, and the large obstacle to your left obscuring your (and the child's) view, but you did well to stop and avoid a collision.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> This *legislation *already exists, it's called assault (_an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact)_.
> 
> Getting it enforced now, that's a different thing!



Or possibly intimidation? Interestingly there seems to be no legal definition of what constitutes intimidation :?:


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You were going a little fast given the slippery surface, the pedestrians to your right, and the large obstacle to your left obscuring your (and the child's) view, but you did well to _*fall over*_ and avoid a collision.



FTFY


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.




They may have the right of way.....but doesn't do them much good if they are dead.

Best to check before you step out on the road.....


Does anyone remember the Tufty Club ??


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Aug 2011)

There's a shared space bit in Gloucester, which I go through fairly regularly on my way to and from work. There are big signs saying "Motorists do not have priority" but, even though I slowed right down and waved pedestrians across in front of me (in the spirit of shared space), they just looked confused and waited for me to pass before crossing anyway. I suspect most pedestrians have become used to the idea of motor vehicles being king on the UK's streets, and shared spaces won't really work until pedestrians become a little more assertive. 
I need hardly add that I'm very much in a minority in slowing my car down, obeying the 20mph speed limit and waving pedestrians across. Most people seem to drive through at 30 or more.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> They may have the right of way.....but doesn't do them much good if they are dead.
> 
> Best to check before you step out on the road.....
> 
> ...



Indeed I do. I did state *in law*.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> There's a shared space bit in Gloucester, which I go through fairly regularly on my way to and from work. There are big signs saying "Motorists do not have priority" but, even though I slowed right down and waved pedestrians across in front of me (in the spirit of shared space), they just looked confused and waited for me to pass before crossing anyway. I suspect most pedestrians have become used to the idea of motor vehicles being king on the UK's streets, and shared spaces won't really work until pedestrians become a little more assertive.
> I need hardly add that I'm very much in a minority in slowing my car down, obeying the 20mph speed limit and waving pedestrians across. Most people seem to drive through at 30 or more.



Sadly that says so much  I let people cross whenever I can I an get looked at as though I have two heads


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484650"]
I'm guessing you put the bike down rather than fall off?

That pedestrian did nothing wrong. She certainly didn't run into you. 

You should have taken a much wider path around that obstacle. Maybe to the right of the other two pedestrians, then you'd have had a better view around the bend.
[/quote]

Looking at the speed the bike went down I think it was a fall.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Aug 2011)

I love waving pedestrians across when I'm driving the lorry. Most people seem really tickled that something 16' high and 60' long with a bend in the middle has stopped (with a satisfying hiss of air brakes) to let them cross. It always seems to make people happy.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Does anyone remember the Tufty Club ??


Indeed, but we managed to resist his bid for world domination!





However, nothing wrong with teaching the little darlings to be careful, as long as drivers (and cyclists) don't get the false impression that it absolves them of responsibility.


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> True. That doesn't mean they can or should jump into moving traffic though!
> 
> It does annoy me that we have come to the situation where pedestrians are expected to only cross at pedestrian crossings. They are there because it's the only way to force traffic to stop, not because that is the only place a pedestrian should cross.




I get it now, you`re a Pedestrian *masquerading* as a Cyclist

Feel free to cross the road anywhere you want, without looking *(blickers on),* but.......... what if you walked into a cyclist who in turn tries to avoid you & runs in front of a Bus & gets killed

Morally how would feel?


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er yes I do mean priority. Slap on the wrist for me!


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I get it now, you`re a Pedestrian *masquerading* as a Cyclist
> 
> Feel free to cross the road anywhere you want, without looking *(blickers on),* but.......... what if you walked into a cyclist who in turn tries to avoid you & runs in front of a Bus & gets killed
> 
> Morally how would feel?



You seem to be entirely ignorant of the law, and the responsibility it places on people.

Yes, pedestrians have the right to cross where they want. But where did I say that meant they could wander into traffic without looking?

Your scenario above would never happen, as I don't do that.


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Indeed, but we managed to resist his bid for world domination!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Grow up.



Why?


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You say you were going slow. It does not look like it. Can the engine be disengaged from the bike? If so I suggest doing so whilst in areas such as that. Also you seem to have terrible bike control. Why did you fall over?




The fountain nearby was overflowing & the pavement was wet, I applied the brakes & as I was going slow enough I should have stopped almost instantly but the back wheel went from under me but I stopped in time. (on my side)
The motor was not engaged at the time as I had my brakes applied slightly (turns motor off)

I must admit this is an area that has not got enough signs warning that it is a shared pathway but in the summertime (like now) its better to walk or take a different route


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> The fountain nearby was overflowing & the pavement was wet, I applied the brakes & as I was going slow enough I should have stopped almost instantly but the back wheel went from under me but I stopped in time. (on my side)
> The motor was not engaged at the time as I had my brakes applied slightly (turns motor off)
> 
> I must admit this is an area that has not got enough signs warning that it is a shared pathway but in the summertime (like now) its better to walk or take a different route



Then a lesson well learned.


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> The fountain nearby was overflowing & the pavement was wet, I applied the brakes & as I was going slow enough I should have stopped almost instantly but the back wheel went from under me but I stopped in time. (on my side)
> The motor was not engaged at the time as I had my brakes applied slightly (turns motor off)
> 
> I must admit this is an area that has not got enough signs warning that it is a shared pathway but in the summertime (like now) its better to walk or take a different route



So don't you think you would have been better taking a wider line, so you could see round the corner more easily?


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> You shouldn't have cut so close to the corner - you couldn't see properly round it. You were lucky no-one was hurt.



I was passing the Mother & other child (didn`t know she had two of them) on my right but I stopped (in time)


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So don't you think you would have been better taking a wider line, so you could see round the corner more easily?



ditto from the other post
I was passing the Mother & other child (didn`t know she had two of them) on my right but I stopped (in time)


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I was passing the Mother & other child (didn`t know she had two of them) on my right but I stopped (in time)






locker said:


> ditto from the other post
> I was passing the Mother & other child (didn`t know she had two of them) on my right but I stopped (in time)



So why didn't you go to the right of them?


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484650"]
I'm guessing you put the bike down rather than fall off?

That pedestrian did nothing wrong. She certainly didn't run into you. 

You should have taken a much wider path around that obstacle. Maybe to the right of the other two pedestrians, then you'd have had a better view around the bend.
[/quote]

to the right of the mother & other child is a large pool & I can`t swim


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> to the right of the mother & other child is a large pool & I can`t swim



Looks like there was just as much room to the right of them as the left.
If you really couldn't have gone to their right you should have stopped until they had gone past you, and then taken a wider line past the corner.


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So why didn't you go to the right of them?




http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=bs1...6,-2.600155&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-36321842


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Looks like there was just as much room to the right of them as the left.
> If you really couldn't have gone to their right you should have stopped until they had gone past you, and then taken a wider line past the corner.



The one thing I will say is that the last line of Lockers post


> I must admit this is an area that has not got enough signs warning that it is a shared pathway but in the summertime (like now) its better to walk or take a different route


 does show a change of heart, however slight.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> http://maps.google.c...oid=po-36321842



Though I recognised the place


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484672"]
There's plenty of room.
[/quote]

ok Mr. Argument if you say so


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Why is the clock above a hour slow, no wonder I`haven`t any customers


----------



## Bman (3 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> The fountain nearby was overflowing & the pavement was wet, I applied the brakes & as I was going slow enough I should have stopped almost instantly but the back wheel went from under me but I stopped in time. (on my side)
> The motor was not engaged at the time as I had my brakes applied slightly (turns motor off)
> 
> I must admit this is an area that has not got enough signs warning that it is a shared pathway but in the summertime (like now) its better to walk or take a different route



Looks to me like, although going slowly you were poorly positioned and still going too fast for the conditions (the obstruction, pedestrians milling around and a fountain which introduces the possibility of slippery surfaces). You didnt expect a child to emerge from the obstruction like you should have, performed an emergency stop and fell off your bike.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484588"]
That's not less. You're being ridiculous. 

I'm a social worker, so don't bother making stuff up.
[/quote]

Have you worked any cases in the States? If not than you do not know what you are talking about.

A neighbor of a friend of mine had a pet raccoon, another neighbor reported them for child abuse and a full investigation was done. Even though the investigation showed that there was *NO CHILDREN* in any kind of danger they still have it on their record.

Also over here in the States plenty of men have had their careers destroyed because a female co-worker has accused them of sexual harassment. I saw a documentary years ago on the use of the polygraph and how inaccurate it can be. There was a man who answered three questions, and the machine said he was lying. He lost his job, he could no longer get any work in his chosen career field. The three questions that the machine said that he lied on were his name, marital status, and address.

So please unless you have actually investigated cases here in the States do not accuse me of making things up.

In the wake of the Casey Anthony case, there is a new bill being purposed for a new law to be called the Caylee Anthony law. It would make it a felony not to report a missing child within a "reasonable amount of time."

You would not believe the number of laws that we have on the books to protect children. There is the Amber Alert, which uses the illuminated signs along the roads to alert people to a missing child, there is the Code Adam for children who go missing in a store or mall. It seems like every time something happens to a child we end up with a new law aimed at protecting children.

Just the other month I was watching Nancy Grace's show "Swift Justice w/Nancy Grace," in which she heard the case of a man v. a woman who had had the man arrested alleging that he molested her son as well as talking him into stealing a car.

Nancy was able to determine from talking to the woman that her son was not the "sweet innocent, little angle" that she was making him out to be. It turns out that her "sweet innocent, little angle" had already spent time in juvenile detention for grand theft auto, and that he had been molested while in juvenile detention. Listening to her testify it sounded as if she was upset that her son wasn't the "sweet innocent, little angel" that she thought he was and because she couldn't go after those who were really responsible she went after the easiest target she could find. Or rather that she thought that she had found.

Even though Nancy didn't award him any money, IIRC she did find in his favor. The only mistake that he made was that he is a member of MySpace,and he as too much personal information posted to his page. And her son was able to gather enough information to make it look as if they really new each other when he (the kid) was just one of thousands of "friends" that he had on MySpace. That and he doesn't/didn't screen his friend requests. He'd approve of any and all friend requests that came in.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484589"]
Yes. 

If you ride into someone, you're responsible.
[/quote]

Agreed, but if the reverse of that is true. If someone through their carelessness runs into a cyclist then they _*NOT*_ the cyclist is responsible.

Why does that seem to be a difficult concept for you to grasp?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Have you worked any cases in the States? If not than you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> A neighbor of a friend of mine had a pet raccoon, another neighbor reported them for child abuse and a full investigation was done. Even though the investigation showed that there was *NO CHILDREN* in any kind of danger they still have it on their record.
> 
> ...


By the same token you have no idea about British life and do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

mcr said:


> At least we still hold to the principle (though a proportion of the population need constant reminding) that bicycles have a right to be on any road (other than motorways and a handful of designated stretches such as long tunnels) while motor vehicles, because they are deemed to be potentially dangerous pieces of machinery, only do so by licence once certain criteria have been met in terms of driver training and vehicle road-worthiness.
> 
> I must say this UK-US cultural difference makes for a fascinating if heated debate - I at least now know where I'd rather be a pedestrian!



Sadly, I think that here in the states our culture as a whole relies more on the car than in other countries. Which the irony of that is that it wasn't until around the '50s or so that that started.


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

Bongman said:


> Looks to me like, although going slowly you were poorly positioned and still going too fast for the conditions (the obstruction, pedestrians milling around and a fountain which introduces the possibility of slippery surfaces). You didnt expect a child to emerge from the obstruction like you should have, performed an emergency stop and fell off your bike.



you	re right I didn`t expect the child to run out like that but I was ready in case something did happen with hands on brakes but didn`t notice the wet surface
I was going slow enough & as most people were standing around I couldn`t wait for them to pass me I would probably have been there all night waiting for people to pass.

Poorly Positioned? don`t know where you get that from maybe you mean when I was on the floor


----------



## locker (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Looks like there was just as much room to the right of them as the left.
> If you really couldn't have gone to their right you should have stopped until they had gone past you,* No as they weren`t going anywhere just standing there ( the girl wasn`t on a reign or rein either
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484598"]
If the alternative is riding into someone then yes, you should. You saw her, you had time to stop, you should have stopped. 

A crowd of people cannot suddenly appear from nowhere. If you're approaching a blind bend you must always assume there is a hazard around the corner until you're sure that there isn't, and alter your speed appropriately. If this means slowing to walking pace then that's what you must do.
[/quote]

I saw her, yes; I did *NOT* have time to stop. If I had she still would have hit my handlebars, plus as I'd said IIRC there were also people coming up from behind me and one or more of them would have walked into me.

Experience has taught me that while at these various concerts/events that yes there are some people milling about in the (closed) street. And that was pretty much true here. It was for want of a better word a fluke that I found myself in the situation that I did.

It wasn't a "blind bend" per say, as it was a normal run of road and as I said where the cop had his post setup was approximately a 1/4 of a mile or so away. At a three-way intersection, down the road from that cops post was another three-way intersection.	And when I stopped at that second intersection and looked up and down the road that I was going to turn on there wasn't any large groups of people milling about. But apparently as I was riding down the road more and more people had started to leave the fenced in area where the concert was being held. So yes a crowd of people *DID* in fact "suddenly" appear from nowhere.

Also as I have said as more people appeared I was slowing my speed down. But that had I completely stopped the gal who hit my handlebars still would have hit them, as well as it is more than likely that the people who were walking behind me would have run into me. Would it have been better for me to stop and have I don't know how many people behind me run into me, or to continue and "allow" one person to hit my handlebars?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484600"]
No, you're not qualified. According to your evidence there have only ever been three fatal cycle pedestrian collisions in the whole world. Ever. 

You're making claims that you can't back up.
[/quote]

No, those are the one's that I remember reading about. Others at the other forum that I go to have talked about cyclists hitting and injuring and/or killing pedestrians.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I saw her, yes; I did *NOT* have time to stop. If I had she still would have hit my handlebars, plus as I'd said IIRC there were also people coming up from behind me and one or more of them would have walked into me.
> 
> Experience has taught me that while at these various concerts/events that yes there are some people milling about in the (closed) street. And that was pretty much true here. It was for want of a better word a fluke that I found myself in the situation that I did.
> 
> ...


Can you not see that your actions were misguided?
Could not stop means going too fast. Fact.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In this country Cyclist have freedom of the highway. In essence it means they have a greater right to be on roads than cars.



The same is true here as well, but if you ask the motorists on the road you get the same unsupported claim that you get over there, i.e. we cyclists do not pay our "fair share" and there for we do not have a right to be on their roads.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> The same is true here as well, but if you ask the motorists on the road you get the same unsupported claim that you get over there, i.e. we cyclists do not pay our "fair share" and there for we do not have a right to be on their roads.


So does that mean we should bow down to the mighty car and take the same attitude towards pedestrians?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484602"]
It's your responsibility not to ride into pedestrians. You've already given one example where you've not accepted this responsibility because you wanted to make headway, and you rode into a pedestrian when you could have stopped. That makes you, just you, more of a hazard than you need to be. Your attitude and riding can be seen to be irresponsible, regardless of what anyone else is doing. So at your level of competency the predictability of others is irrelevant. 

I suggest that you sort yourself out first, as that which you have most influence over, rather than deferring responsibility to others.
[/quote]

Agreed, it is a cyclists responsibility not to run/ride into anyone.

No, I did *NOT* run into her *SHE* ran into me. As *SHE* was moving faster than I was. I ride through the parks *EVERYDAY* of the week around I don't know how many people. I have attended the First Friday concert in Downtown St. Pete with hundreds of people, I have attended New's Year Eve and Fourth of July fireworks with hundreds *IF* not thousands of people and never had one conflict.

This one time one gal ran/walked into me. How is that my fault that she ran into me? She was going faster than I was, I was going slow, being as careful as I could. As if I had stopped the people behind me would have run into me. Would that have been better?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> I'm glad I live in a country where I can walk across the street just where and when I feel like it.
> PS. As a car driver and cyclist, I am perfectly happy to take care not to hit pedestrians who are exercising that right. I will cuss out teenagers (who should know better) who deliberately jump into the road to make me stop, but it is my responsibility to STOP.
> 
> 
> ...



No, no "discrepancy," I just hadn't given the incident much thought. But the more that I think about it, the more details that I remember.

And yes, there are, as I have said before it is very common to see people walking down the sidewalk/pavement listening to an iPod at such a loud volume that it can be heard several feet behind them and for several feet after passing them. Or they have their eyes glued on their cell/mobile texting or talking.

Yesterday I stopped at a store (Amscot) to get a money order there was a gal at the counter talking away on her cell/mobile phone as if she was at home. There was another woman there with her children sitting in the chairs again talking on her cell/mobile phone as if she was the only one there.

Then when I was on my ride, I was in the street and there were two women walking in the opposite direction on the sidewalk/pavement, eyes glued to their cell/mobile phones texting, one was also walking a dog.

Yes, there are, as sadly way too many people in this country "are in a hurry to get nowhere fast." So much so that one would get the impression that it would actually "kill" them if they were to leave for their appointments with enough time to get there in case of detour/breakdown.

The most common close call that I have while riding is at intersections where a driver swoops around me to beat me to the stop light. Yes, they are "racing me" for want of a better word to stop.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> DC is simply one those cyclists who believes that he has a god given right to cycle where he wants, when he wants. I hate people like that.



No, I am not. How many times do I have to tell you that I am about the only cyclist who when riding through the parks slows down when they encounter people?

Yesterday when I was finishing up my ride getting ready to leave one of the parks a small puppy ran on to the sidewalk into my path. If I had been going any faster I would not have had time to stop to avoid hitting it. When I encounter a parent with a small child, and the parent tells their children to watch out for the bicycle. I let them know that I am looking out for them (the children and dogs) and that I have good brakes. And we usually end up joking about the other cyclists who go riding through the park(s) as if they're running the TdF.

If I rode like you are claiming that I rode wouldn't I be hitting pedestrians left and right on a daily basis? Wouldn't I have close calls with pedestrias on a daily basis? I do not because when I am around people out riding I slow down, unlike a lot (it almost seems the majority) of cyclists who are riding through the park at full speed.

When I am out riding and I'm on the one sidewalk that I routinely ride on, if there are too many people on it in front of me I'll "jump" off of the sidewalk and return to the street. Even if there isn't a wheelchair accessible ramp nearby that I can use. I would rather risk doing damage to my bike or causing myself injury than risk injuring someone who is walking in front of me.

Does that sounds like the actions of someone who feels as if they have the "right" to ride anywhere, at anytime that they want? If you actually saw me out riding you would see how safe and careful of a rider that I am.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> No, I am not. How many times do I have to tell you that I am about the only cyclist who when riding through the parks slows down when they encounter people?
> 
> Yesterday when I was finishing up my ride getting ready to leave one of the parks a small puppy ran on to the sidewalk into my path. If I had been going any faster I would not have had time to stop to avoid hitting it. When I encounter a parent with a small child, and the parent tells their children to watch out for the bicycle. I let them know that I am looking out for them (the children and dogs) and that I have good brakes. And we usually end up joking about the other cyclists who go riding through the park(s) as if they're running the TdF.
> 
> ...


Well your comments thus far paint a very different picture I assure you.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I think if a pedestrian stepped into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there was no possibility of avoiding a collision, the cyclist would not be at fault (assuming they were cycling at a reasonable speed for the road). The same would apply to a motor vehicle, again if they were under the speed limit.
> 
> If a pedestrian steps into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there *is* time to avoid them, but the cyclist rides into them anyway, then the cyclist is at fault.
> 
> Pedestrians have the right to cross the road where they want, *but obviously shouldn't go throwing themselves into moving traffic.*



Sadly, way too many seem to think that they have that "right." And they expect motorists/cyclists to lock up their brakes and avoid hitting them.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Oops, sorry, I meant this one.
> 
> 
> Ah, OK, I guess the answer, then, is that there are indeed no places that are exclusively for the use of bicycles. (At least not in any way that absolves them of responsibility.)
> ...



Agreed, and if it is the pedestrian that is bringing the risk then they need to take responsibility for their actions. No one group should be given total "autonomy" over another group.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, and if it is the pedestrian that is bringing the risk then they need to take responsibility for their actions. No one group should be given total "autonomy" over another group.


Think of it this way. The larger and more powerful a vehicle the greater the care the driver/rider needs to take


----------



## 400bhp (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484171"]
I couldn't disagree more. 



[/quote]

+1

We should understand more than anyone about being considerate in the surroundings.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> You mean like not making sure you give a pedestrian enough room and pass them at a safe speed?
> 
> The default position is that paths are for pedestrians. If they wander around erratically they're not much of a danger to each other. The risk is tiny.
> Cyclists are allowed to use the paths, as long as they do not increase the risks to pedestrians that they already pose to each other.
> ...



Are you trying to say that you've never seen/heard of that happening? I guess maybe over there, there aren't as many people who have their heads up their fourth point of contact, i.e. lost in their cell/mobile phone or are listening to their iPods at such a volume that they can't hear anything around them.

A couple of years ago when I was going to the library I saw a woman get off of a bus. Talking on her cell/mobile phone and just step off of the curb without looking. Fortunately I had enough room between her and the curb to be able to avoid hitting her. Had I been a car or a motorcycle she'd either be dead or I would have clipped her.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> +1
> 
> We should understand more than anyone about being considerate in the surroundings.


+1


----------



## 400bhp (3 Aug 2011)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNa_AQ5o51M&feature=youtu.be


Owned


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> It's been tried a couple of times: google for "naked streets" or "shared streets". I am not altogether convinced it works as well as its proponents says: the average taxi driver at Seven Dials in my experience tends to put his foot down and gun the engine rather than make eye contact and amicably negotiate priority with the pedestrians in his path, *but perhaps it just needs to be backed up with legislation that makes "scaring the shoot out of people" an arrestable offence*



Actually in Los Angeles, California it is. They just passed a law making it an offense to harass cyclists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Are you trying to say that you've never seen/heard of that happening? I guess maybe over there, there aren't as many people who have their heads up their fourth point of contact, i.e. lost in their cell/mobile phone or are listening to their iPods at such a volume that they can't hear anything around them.
> 
> A couple of years ago when I was going to the library I saw a woman get off of a bus. Talking on her cell/mobile phone and just step off of the curb without looking. Fortunately I had enough room between her and the curb to be able to avoid hitting her. Had I been a car or a motorcycle she'd either be dead or I would have clipped her.


By the sound of it the U.S of A is heading for a fall comparable with that of the Roman Empire. The way you describe the country it is full of idiots who can not think for themselves and who possess suicidal tendancies.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> Not meaning to interrupt or detract from the discussion, but what a great phrase! Salmon cyclist. Love it.



Thank you, we also use the phrase "ninja cyclist" for someone who rides without lights or reflectors, as well as a combined ninja-salmon. About the only riding style we haven't come up with a phrase for are those who regularly ride on the sidewalk/pavement and the road.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I love waving pedestrians across when I'm driving the lorry. Most people seem really tickled that something 16' high and 60' long with a bend in the middle has stopped (with a satisfying hiss of air brakes) to let them cross. It always seems to make people happy.



I too when out riding will stop and wave pedestrians on their way. And it is surprising how many are surprised that someone stopped to allow them to cross.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484672"]
There's plenty of room.
[/quote]

Were you there at the time and knew exactly how much space he had? You do know that space has a tendency to get distorted in videos/pictures right? And what seems to one to be "plenty" of room in reality could be a narrow "horse path."


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> By the same token you have no idea about British life and do not know what you are talking about.



This is true, and I never claimed to. I am speaking from a common sense perspective. And common sense says that everyone is responsible for their own safety and shouldn't rely on others to protect them.


----------



## Thomk (3 Aug 2011)

I could only bear to read 17 pages of this so may be repeating...sorry.
I have some sympathy for both/all views here. I think shared cycle/ped paths in a park are a bad idea and, in our imperfect world, bound to be somewhat unsafe. The onus must of course always be on the cyclist to avoid collisions and in a perfect world children should be allowed to stagger around with free abandon. However, I would be loathe to allow my two kids (under 5) to wander around freely on one of these paths because of the risks to them caused by unsafe and erratic cyclists (unfortunately they do exist). If they hit one of my kids they would be completely responsible according to law but that is of little relevance to me or the child. The solution is a vast increase in the skill/attitude level of poor cyclists (unlikely) or a rethink of the shared cycle/ped situation.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well your comments thus far paint a very different picture I assure you.



That was one incident out of I don't know how many years and miles of riding. And as I said if I had it to do over with the knowledge that I'd gained still intact I would have taken a different route. Past experience had taught me that it is/was safe to continue through even though the street was closed to motor vehicle traffic.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> This is true, and I never claimed to. I am speaking from a common sense perspective. And common sense says that everyone is responsible for their own safety and shouldn't rely on others to protect them.


No, you are speaking from a position of what is best for you. Common sense should tell you to obey the law. In this country, unless otherwise stated, pedestrians always have priority.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Think of it this way. The larger and more powerful a vehicle the greater the care the driver/rider needs to take



Agreed, I guess over there you don't have people committing suicide by throwing themselves into the path of moving vehicles.

Granted it isn't an everyday (at least as far as I know) occurrence here, but it does happen. Likewise we have people who commit what is known as "blue suicide." Meaning that they intentionally go out and do something that causes the police to shot and kill them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, I guess over there you don't have people committing suicide by throwing themselves into the path of moving vehicles.
> 
> Granted it isn't an everyday (at least as far as I know) occurrence here, but it does happen. Likewise we have people who commit what is known as "blue suicide." Meaning that they intentionally go out and do something that causes the police to shot and kill them.


Assumptions aqe the mother of all fukups .


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No, you are speaking from a position of what is best for you. Common sense should tell you to obey the law. In this country, unless otherwise stated, pedestrians always have priority.



Fortunately over here they don't have "priority," yes they have the right of way, but that also is not absolute. Over here if a pedestrian is walking down a road that doesn't have a sidewalk/pavement they have to yield the right of way to motor vehicles.

And I do obey the law, as at times it seems that I am the only one on a bicycle who stops for stop lights/signs, and yields to pedestrians. As well as more often than not it seems like I am the only one who uses lights (I actually have more lights on my bike/person than the law requires) or wears a reflective vest.

Even with all of my lights and vest I still had a woman pull up along side of me and tell me that I was "hard to see." I had to laugh as I had two taillights in blink mode, and a large orange safety vest.

So please do not try to tell me that I do not obey the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Fortunately over here they don't have "priority," yes they have the right of way, but that also is not absolute. Over here if a pedestrian is walking down a road that doesn't have a sidewalk/pavement they have to yield the right of way to motor vehicles.
> 
> And I do obey the law, as at times it seems that I am the only one on a bicycle who stops for stop lights/signs, and yields to pedestrians. As well as more often than not it seems like I am the only one who uses lights (I actually have more lights on my bike/person than the law requires) or wears a reflective vest.
> 
> ...


I will when you stop commenting on UK topics from an American PoV.


----------



## Tommi (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Again, it comes down, IMHO, to the points that I made in the earlier post. The person bringing the greater risk to the space should be prepared to take the bulk of the responsibility.


Right. Now given a situation involving an adult pedestrian behaving unpredictably and a small child learning to ride a bike, or a grandmother with not the best of reflexes riding leisurely, would you agree the person bringing the greater risk is the pedestrian? Just trying to establish that pedestrians also have responsibilities and a collision by itself does not prove the cyclist was at fault.

And as you said, lacking presumed liability (unless something similar is actually implied by shared paths) pedestrians would actually need to prove that the cyclist in fact was negligent. If car-bicycle incidents are any indication, good luck with that.


----------



## Tommi (3 Aug 2011)

Thomk said:


> I could only bear to read 17 pages of this so may be repeating...sorry.
> I have some sympathy for both/all views here. *I think shared cycle/ped paths in a park are a bad idea and, in our imperfect world, bound to be somewhat unsafe.* The onus must of course always be on the cyclist to avoid collisions and in a perfect world children should be allowed to stagger around with free abandon. However, I would be loathe to allow my two kids (under 5) to wander around freely on one of these paths because of the risks to them caused by unsafe and erratic cyclists (unfortunately they do exist). If they hit one of my kids they would be completely responsible according to law but that is of little relevance to me or the child. The solution is a vast increase in the skill/attitude level of poor cyclists (unlikely) or a rethink of the shared cycle/ped situation.


Funny. Vast majority of cycle paths in Finland are actually shared cycle/pedestrian paths, even with mopeds allowed much of the time, and I don't believe anyone considers them unsafe. (Oh, cycling modal share in Finland is also about five times that of UK - quite an achievement considering long and cold winter....)

Anyway, I don't think there's anything fundamentally bad in shared paths. They work just fine when all parties know they're *shared* and shared equally; yes you have responsibility of your actions but you don't paint a picture of one party being above all else.

Curious how there seems to be no difference between shared paths and *everything else* in parks. To me it seems clear one is for traffic and the other is for free wandering around. But I guess common sense comes in different flavours.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Right. Now given a situation involving an adult pedestrian behaving unpredictably and a small child learning to ride a bike, or a grandmother with not the best of reflexes riding leisurely, would you agree the person bringing the greater risk is the pedestrian? Just trying to establish that pedestrians also have responsibilities and a collision by itself does not prove the cyclist was at fault.


Not sure whether you are after the legal or the moral position. The legal position as I understand it (IANAL), is that the party that claims to have been injured due to the other party's actions would need to prove negligence on the part of that other party.

As far as the scenarios are concerned, there is not really enough information really to make a firm judgement.

However, in the case of the old lady I would say that (again, IMHO), in the absence of any other factors, she is at fault as she should not be riding in this place if she doesn't have the reflexes to cope with it and is therefore being irresponsible. It is analogous to some doddery, half-blind old guy who hits someone in a car; it's his fault because he shouldn't be on the road. (And there are many examples of the latter.)

In the case of the child, I think the parents are being irresponsible having the child ride in a place that they are not yet ready for.

The person bringing the biggest risk to these situations is the person that brings the bicycle there.


----------



## orbiter (3 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> You are a wind up I think. It's unpredictable when children run out no matter how safely we are cycling. What a silly comment to make and one I'd take as an insult. 'Cycling properly'



It's unpredictable when cyclists swerve into the way no matter how safely we're driving..........

Learn to deal with it! (Cycle properly?)


----------



## Tommi (3 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> However, in the case of the old lady I would say that (again, IMHO), in the absence of any other factors, she is at fault as she should not be riding in this place if she doesn't have the reflexes to cope with it and is therefore being irresponsible.


Ok, I wasn't clear. I meant in both cases the cyclist behaviour would be totally responsible provided that the pedestrian behaved responsibly themselves. Why does a bicycle make you responsible for other people behaving irresponsibly? What other items have the same magic effect? Kickboard? Rollerblades? Wheelchair? Heavy backbag? Shopping bag?



MrHappyCyclist said:


> In the case of the child, I think the parents are being irresponsible having the child ride in a place that they are not yet ready for.
> 
> The person bringing the biggest risk to these situations is the person that brings the bicycle there.


In a conflict between lightweight grandmother riding responsibly and a normal (i.e. obese) adult pedestrian behaving erratically I still assert it's the pedestrian bringing the biggest risk to the situation. Bicycle by itself can not be the justification for the simple reason that not all bicycles are the same and not all pedestrians are the same.


----------



## Matthew_T (3 Aug 2011)

The only occasions where I have had children run out infront of me is when I have been on a cycle path on the promenade where I live. 

Once when I was in Rhos-on-Sea, a child ran out from a car. I had to skid to avoid him. I told his mother that I had nearly gone into him and she apologised politely. I was doing about 27mph when I had to brake. 

Secondly, I was in Rhyl. A child was running around the cycle path and decided to walk into my path. Once again I just missed him but this time the parents were a bit more unconcerned. They chose to shout abuse at me when I was explaining that he shouldnt be in the cycle path and they should be taking more care of him. 

Children are the worst because parents neglect to take responsible care for them. I am lucky I had my whits about me and aavoided them both.


----------



## JonnyBlade (3 Aug 2011)

orbiter said:


> It's unpredictable when cyclists swerve into the way no matter how safely we're driving..........
> 
> Learn to deal with it! (Cycle properly?)



Sorry I don't know what point you are trying to make. I do deal with it and still it doesn't make children predictable. Try keeping up with the conversation, _I _think the general consensus has moved on


----------



## JonnyBlade (3 Aug 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The only occasions where I have had children run out infront of me is when I have been on a cycle path on the promenade where I live.
> 
> Once when I was in Rhos-on-Sea, a child ran out from a car. I had to skid to avoid him. I told his mother that I had nearly gone into him and she apologised politely. I was doing about 27mph when I had to brake.
> 
> ...



MT, be very careful. You'll be shouted down and be accused of not cycling properly with wild talk like that


----------



## benb (3 Aug 2011)

If a pedestrian suddenly changes direction, and there is a collision, the cyclist was too close and/or going too fast.

Pedestrians are unpredictable, so we need to be extra vigilant on shared use paths.


----------



## tongskie01 (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484721"]
Then you were riding too fast. Again, it's simple.



Yes, it would be right for you to stop. No-one would have run into you.

You've claimed that the impact speed was 18mph. You were riding too fast.



[/quote]

its seems that DC is unto some sort of psychological defence mechanism. trying to rationalise what his done is right but the facts that is presented confirms that it all doesnt add up. 
for example, how would he know that people walking behind him will run into him? thats very unrealistic isnt it?


----------



## mangaman (4 Aug 2011)

Wow.

39 pages for such a simple concept.

There are no public areas that I could cycle in the UK without peds / dog walkers having equal rights.

On a bike, I would be expected to give way to the above (ie cycle very slowly near people and either not cycle or effectively push with 1 leg as Lee described when young kids / dogs are around).

My answer is - I ride on the road






It's really not complicated. I can't believe it's generated 39 pages of the obvious.

Clearly the law is different in the US where the car is king and no-one would consider walking or cycling somewhere a mile or so away as a sane option. (In my experience)

Hence the Jay walking laws/ hence the extra anti-cycling/ped thinking among US drivers and planners/ hence the anti non-cyclists by Digital Cowboy. They're a continuum of unpleasantness.

At least we have the rudiments of a sensible hierarchy of provision in the UK - with the most dangerous taking the most responsibility.

Of course in even more enlightened European countries this goes further, towards actual legal liability.

In the US it clearly doesn't - which is a shame.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Wow.
> 
> 39 pages for such a simple concept.
> 
> ...


This has to rate as the best post so far!


----------



## Tommi (4 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Wow.
> 
> 39 pages for such a simple concept.
> 
> ...


Weird, part of that sounds almost like "Can't you see I'm right and you're wrong, why do people even bother discussing this?"


----------



## mangaman (4 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Weird, part of that sounds almost like "Can't you see I'm right and you're wrong, why do people even bother discussing this?"



Not that weird if you think about it.

The law is clear - pedestrians have right of way on UK cycle paths / pavements.

I think discussing a fact for 40 pages is a little OTT but there you go. I can't compain now I've waded in.

If there were legal room for manoeuvre, I could understand it, but there isn't. 

In the UK this is a simple factual matter - obviously this thread has been railroaded by posters from countries with different laws - but here it is straightforward.

If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.


----------



## Tommi (4 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Not that weird if you think about it.
> 
> The law is clear - pedestrians have right of way on UK cycle paths / pavements.
> 
> ...


Lets see, points brought up so far:

right of way does not mean you have priority
priority does not absolve you of responsibility
pedestrian needs to prove negligence in any case as there is no presumption of liability in UK
pedestrian behaving irresponsibly
pedestrian walking into cyclist
probably others I forgot
I don't recall anyone questioning the right of way. That's not the point of contention.



mangaman said:


> If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.


So basically you're saying as soon as you're on a bicycle you become responsible for irresponsible behaviour of pedestrians? It doesn't matter how old you are or how fast you're riding and how erratically the pedestrian is behaving, it's always your fault?


----------



## Thomk (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484735"]
No, he's saying that if you ride into someone then the collision is a result of your action. Because your act of riding into someone is your doing. If you were going too fast for you to be stop and avoid the collision, you were going too fast.
[/quote]

I find myself agreeing with almost everything you've said on this thread. I don't think I would allow my 2 children (both under 5) to play freely and unsupervised (or under supervised) on a joint cycle/ped path though. If there was a collision with a cyclist I would feel it was partly my fault since I am capable of anticipating that there are dangerous and irresponsible cyclists in this country who may be a danger to my children. It would almost certainly be the cyclists fault but given that the safety of my children is primarily mine (oh and their mothers a bit) I would feel responsible also. I would like to let them loose to play everywhere in parks but I feel as though I can't rely on other people acting responsibly. When and if we have more shared paths, have had them longer and cyclists are trained better (someone mentioned they seem safe in Finland because of these improvements) then I might reconsider.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Ok, I wasn't clear. I meant in both cases the cyclist behaviour would be totally responsible provided that the pedestrian behaved responsibly themselves. Why does a bicycle make you responsible for other people behaving irresponsibly? What other items have the same magic effect? Kickboard? Rollerblades? Wheelchair? Heavy backbag? Shopping bag?
> 
> In a conflict between lightweight grandmother riding responsibly and a normal (i.e. obese) adult pedestrian behaving erratically I still assert it's the pedestrian bringing the biggest risk to the situation. Bicycle by itself can not be the justification for the simple reason that not all bicycles are the same and not all pedestrians are the same.


Well, anyone who behaves irresponsibly ought to be held liable for the consequences of their irresponsible actions, irrespective of their mode of transport, but that statement changes nothing. The problem we are having here is around the definition of "irresponsible". For pedestrians, changing direction unpredictably, without signalling or checking mirrors (nor even doing a shoulder check) is not normally irresponsible because it really does not pose any danger to anyone in the absence of a bicycle or motor vehicle. Neither is emerging from behind an obstacle or round a corner, stopping suddenly, stepping suddenly to the side, etc. It is the bringing of those machines into the scenario that creates the risks and therefore carries the bulk of the responsibility. If you ride a bicycle among pedestrians, then your riding should take account of the fact that pedestrian movements can be unpredictable (or even "erratic"); that's all I'm saying.

Given that it is the definitions or "responsibly" and "irresponsibly" that are at issue here, it's no good putting forward scenarios in which you say "X behaving responsibly and y behaving irresponsibly" without specifying what the actual behaviour was. This is why the law is not black and white and we have courts, magistrates, judges and juries to make a judgement about what is or isn't reasonable. It is also one of the reasons why our legal system relies heavily on case law and precedents rather than hard and fast a-priori definitions.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Aug 2011)

Thomk said:


> I find myself agreeing with almost everything you've said on this thread. I don't think I would allow my 2 children (both under 5) to play freely and unsupervised (or under supervised) on a joint cycle/ped path though. If there was a collision with a cyclist I would feel it was partly my fault since I am capable of anticipating that there are dangerous and irresponsible cyclists in this country who may be a danger to my children. It would almost certainly be the cyclists fault but given that the safety of my children is primarily mine (oh and their mothers a bit) I would feel responsible also. I would like to let them loose to play everywhere in parks but I feel as though I can't rely on other people acting responsibly.


I find myself agreeing with almost everything you've said on this thread. I don't think I would knowingly leave the front door of my house unlocked when I go out, though. If the house was burgled I would feel it was partly my fault since I am capable of anticipating that there are thieves and vagabonds in this country who may steal my property. It would almost certainly be the burglar's fault but given that the security of my home is primarily mine (oh and my wife's a bit) I would feel responsible also. I would like to go out without always having to worry about checking all the doors and windows, but I feel as though I can't rely on other people acting honestly.



Thomk said:


> When and if we have more shared paths, have had them longer and cyclists are trained better (someone mentioned they seem safe in Finland because of these improvements) then I might reconsider.


As a foreigner in Finland (Malmo, I think it was), I didn't notice the paint on the pavement and strayed onto the cycle part when waiting for some other people to come out of the hotel. I had to leap to safety when a couple of cyclists came along the path at high speed. So I'm not sure it's really that safe.


----------



## Thomk (4 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I find myself agreeing with almost everything you've said on this thread. I don't think I would knowingly leave the front door of my house unlocked when I go out, though. If the house was burgled I would feel it was partly my fault since I am capable of anticipating that there are thieves and vagabonds in this country who may steal my property. It would almost certainly be the burglar's fault but given that the security of my home is primarily mine (oh and my wife's a bit) I would feel responsible also. I would like to go out without always having to worry about checking all the doors and windows, but I feel as though I can't rely on other people acting honestly.



You try to make a point here but fail to see the point. It is a question of degree. If I left my door wide open I would feel as though it was partly my fault. If I allow my children to wander in the middle of the road unsupervised where motorists should give them priority I would feel as though it was partly my fault if they were injured. 

Do you have young children and do you make choices on their behalf to ensure their safety? Do you feel responsible for their safety?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Aug 2011)

Thomk said:


> You try to make a point here but fail to see the point. It is a question of degree. If I left my door wide open I would feel as though it was partly my fault. If I allow my children to wander in the middle of the road unsupervised where motorists should give them priority I would feel as though it was partly my fault if they were injured.


I was agreeing with you and attempting to reinforce your point with an analogous text.



Thomk said:


> Do you have young children and do you make choices on their behalf to ensure their safety? Do you feel responsible for their safety?


Well, they're grown up now, but yes, of course I took responsibility for their safety when they were little. (In fact, I do still worry a bit about my 24 year old daughter's cycling because I think she cycles too near the edge of the road and doesn't claim the lane nearly enough, but all I can do is point to the relevant advice.)


----------



## Thomk (4 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I was agreeing with you and attempting to reinforce your point with an analogous text.
> 
> 
> Well, they're grown up now, but yes, of course I took responsibility for their safety when they were little. (In fact, I do still worry a bit about my 24 year old daughter's cycling because I think she cycles too near the edge of the road and doesn't claim the lane nearly enough, but all I can do is point to the relevant advice.)



Oh.....sorry  . Excuse - It's raining outside (why do people say outside?) and I'm about to go out on a 12 mile ride and am not looking forward to it much - distracted!


----------



## 400bhp (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484726"]
Families all over the place. I must have spent a couple of minutes in total crawling behind waiting for a safe time to pass. That's fine.
[/quote]

There we go.

It's easy isn't it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> There we go.
> 
> It's easy isn't it.



If only others could see it that way.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (4 Aug 2011)

I have found the pedestrians in the park are more alert to cyclists than they are anywhere else, perhaps it's because my bike has such a loud tick when freewheeling.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Not that weird if you think about it.
> 
> The law is clear - pedestrians have right of way on UK cycle paths / pavements.
> 
> ...




As clear as mud


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> As clear as mud



OK to simplify even more.

_*If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.*_


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OK to simplify even more.
> 
> _*If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.*_



Nicely put, +1.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Nicely put, +1.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OK to simplify even more.
> 
> _*If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.*_



If only it was as simple as this, after 401 pages it clearly isn`t


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> If only it was as simple as this, after 401 pages it clearly isn`t



It is that simple - some people just refuse to accept it.

Again: if a pedestrian suddenly changes direction and you collide with them then you were passing too close and/or going too fast.


----------



## Jezston (4 Aug 2011)

This was written on the wall of the Facebook group of an informal riding club I occasionally go out with:



> Oh and for the record, zebra crossings are voluntary, its not mandatory to stop at them. the green cross code clearly states, that you should wait for the road users to stop before crossing. so zebra crossing users who choose not to look and wait before stepping out, can **** off. ur getting road rashed. WORD.





It had received 4 likes. 


*Sigh*.


----------



## just jim (4 Aug 2011)

Is "locker" short for "thread locker"?
AFS's point can't be put any more succinctly can it?


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484752"]
Yes it is. And you should know better than anyone.
[/quote]


That`s why I`m a expert  

Pedestrians (humans beings) are responsible for their own actions, every case should be taken on it`s own merits

Law is not as clear cut as everyone thinks or perceive

And before you go on & on & on & on & on about Big Mama, yes again I say I was going too fast

What is done is done, what is going to happen who knows


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> If only it was as simple as this, after 401 pages it clearly isn`t



It is that simple. The law is that clear cut.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Big Mama,



That's bang out of order


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> That`s why I`m a expert
> 
> Pedestrians (humans beings) are responsible for their own actions, every case should be taken on it`s own merits
> 
> ...




OK You have (pretty much) admitted your were in the wrong in the BM video. The name itself is highly contentious though and is placing you in the firing line for being a racist.


----------



## wiggydiggy (4 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> This was written on the wall of the Facebook group of an informal riding club I occasionally go out with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What, hit over the head with a 90's video game......

I'll get me coat


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> This was written on the wall of the Facebook group of an informal riding club I occasionally go out with:
> 
> [/color]
> 
> ...



Lest face it. Some people are just born stupid, live stupid and die stupid.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> That's bang out of order




I`m not bring racist at all, Big Mama refers to the film with Martin Lawrence so don`t give me that racist crap
I will only say this once & will not dwell on it any more


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OK You have (pretty much) admitted your were in the wrong in the BM video. The name itself is highly contentious though and is placing you in the firing line for being a racist.




I have admitted it so many times I have forgotten how many

what is done is done & can`t be undone

what is said is said but can be un-said


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I have admitted it so many times I have forgotten how many
> 
> what is done is done & can`t be undone
> 
> what is said is said but can be un-said



But you show absolutely no sign of having learnt the lessons - you still think that pedestrians should not be able to stop and change direction on a path.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> But you show absolutely no sign of having learnt the lessons - you still think that pedestrians should not be able to stop and change direction on a path.




I thought we have gone through all this in the last 40 pages, just because you feel you are right doesn`t mean everyone must be wrong

Maybe there is no right or wrong just different opinions


----------



## kedab (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484191"]
No. Children learning to ride are unpredictable and wobbly. As I've already said, if you want to ride somewhere where children won't impede you, stay on the road.
[/quote]

ah but User, what about children learning to drive on the road? they are also unpredictable!


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I thought we have gone through all this in the last 40 pages, just because you feel you are right doesn`t mean everyone must be wrong
> 
> Maybe there is no right or wrong just different opinions



See. You don't think that if a pedestrian on a path stops or changes direction, and there is a collision, that it's your fault for not leaving enough room or going too fast.

You are plain, flat, wrong.


----------



## Jezston (4 Aug 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> What, hit over the head with a 90's video game......
> 
> I'll get me coat




[eyes wiggydiggy up suspiciously]
Do ... I ... _know ... _you?


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> See. You don't think that if a pedestrian on a path stops or changes direction, and there is a collision, that it's your fault for not leaving enough room or going too fast.
> 
> You are plain, flat, wrong.




Still can`t find that ignore button, someone tell me where it is?


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Still can`t find that ignore button, someone tell me where it is?



Click the drop down next to Signed in as locker. Then click My settings. Click Profile, then Manage Ignored Users. Then you can start typing in the box and you can add me to ignore.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Click the drop down next to Signed in as locker. Then click My settings. Click Profile, then Manage Ignored Users. Then you can start typing in the box and you can add me to ignore.




It was a joke don`t get so upset


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> It was a joke don`t get so upset


I think Ben was hoping rather than getting upset


----------



## 400bhp (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> I`m not bring racist at all, Big Mama refers to the film with Martin Lawrence so don`t give me that racist crap
> I will only say this once & will not dwell on it any more



Bring racist?

No idea what you are on about.

I'd like to see you use that language in Moss Side.

Idiot.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think Ben was hoping rather than getting upset




He can always ignore me


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> Bring racist?
> 
> No idea what you are on about.
> 
> ...



dear dear dear, grow up


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> It was a joke don`t get so upset



I'm not upset.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Not that weird if you think about it.
> 
> The law is clear - pedestrians have right of way on UK cycle paths / pavements.
> 
> ...



Bus and cycle lanes. Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic.


*13*
Routes shared with cyclists. Some cycle tracks run alongside footpaths or pavements, using a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot. Segregated routes may also incorporate short lengths of tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct side. On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series of flat-topped bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel (tramline pattern). Not all routes which are shared with cyclists are segregated. Take extra care where this is so

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you*MUST* keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.


Does not say much about a right of way although it does mention extreme care!


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484778"]
You're being offensive by referring to her weight, and you're using a racist term.

This isn't some forties Tom and Jerry cartoon.

If you didn't realise that you were using term which has underlying racist tones, then fair enough. I assume you'll now stop using it, and change the title of your youtube clip?


[/quote]

Ignore


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Ignore



Welcome to the party and the diversity of this conversation. The subject has been lost so many times for the quango arguments


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Lets see, points brought up so far:
> 
> right of way does not mean you have priority
> priority does not absolve you of responsibility
> ...





It's called passing the monkey. Cyclists cannot be held accountable all the time and pedestrians have to share the monkey


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Bus and cycle lanes. Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic.
> 
> 
> *13*
> ...



Where`s all the rest, law, morally, priority, right of way, all this looks like common sense & nothing to argue about, so how come there`s been so much Bu%^ 

well done by the way


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Where`s all the rest, law, morally, priority, right of way, all this looks like common sense & nothing to argue about, so how come there`s been so much Bu%^
> 
> well done by the way



Direct.gov.co.uk Highway code for pedestrians and cyclists. I'm afraid the code does not go into morality because the rules would become ambiguous and open to misrepresentation, misuse or misunderstanding


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So for those who remember our friend who ran down a pedestrian on a path, I thought I'd show him how it should be done.
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYiy0d8Z5S4[/media]





It all started off with this "our friend" happens to be me I believe as I allowed this vid to be posted as a response to my vid (for reasons of education)

[media]
]View: http://youtu.be/NGO3bt6YPKo[/media]


caution don`t watch it if you are of a small minded disposition


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Direct.gov.co.uk Highway code for pedestrians and cyclists. I'm afraid the code does not go into morality because the rules would become ambiguous and open to misrepresentation, misuse or misunderstanding




Ambiguous! you`re not joking


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> It all started off with this "our friend" happens to be me I believe as I allowed this vid to be posted as a response to my vid (for reasons of education)
> 
> [media]
> ]View: http://youtu.be/NGO3bt6YPKo[/media]
> ...




Safe cycling my friend. The little ones often race bikes just as they race alongside road runners. At any point though any number of pedestrians could have turned into your path, especially those occupying the 'cycle' lane.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Ambiguous! you`re not joking


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> It all started off with this "our friend" happens to be me I believe as I allowed this vid to be posted as a response to my vid (for reasons of education)
> 
> caution don`t watch it if you are of a small minded disposition



You believe correctly. 
"for reasons of education" - what have you learnt?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> It all started off with this "our friend" happens to be me I believe as I allowed this vid to be posted as a response to my vid (for reasons of education)
> 
> [media]
> ]View: http://youtu.be/NGO3bt6YPKo[/media]
> ...



So you are back to claiming it is educational. Wasn't also used by the Police to advice peds how to walk safely (your claim). You haven't changed one bit. You are just a sad old man looking for attention.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

hahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So you are back to claiming it is educational. Wasn't also used by the Police to advice peds how to walk safely (your claim). You haven't changed one bit. You are just a sad old man looking for attention.



In fairness, I think he was claiming that he "allowed" my video to be posted as a video response (although I'm pretty sure it just went straight on automatically) to his, and it was _my _video that was meant to be educational.

Still, he doesn't seem to have actually learnt anything from it. I would hate to be his teacher, so frustrating!


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> You believe correctly.
> "for reasons of education" - what have you learnt?




A lot. What more can I say.
but at least I know that not everyone can be right all the time (including me) & nearly everything or anything can be interrupted differently according how a person preceives what they see or understands


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> A lot. What more can I say.
> but at least I know that not everyone can be right all the time (including me) & nearly everything or anything can be interrupted differently according how a person preceives what they see or understands



Stop talking sense and succumb to the will of others


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> In fairness, I think he was claiming that he "allowed" my video to be posted as a video response (although I'm pretty sure it just went straight on automatically) to his, and it was _my _video that was meant to be educational.
> 
> Still, he doesn't seem to have actually learnt anything from it. I would hate to be his teacher, so frustrating!



It looks as though the original text has been deleted but Locker did claim that his video was shown in youth clubs and the like to warn people about the dangers of not looking where they were going.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So you are back to claiming it is educational. Wasn't also used by the Police to advice peds how to walk safely (your claim). You haven't changed one bit. You are just a sad old man looking for attention.




Here we go back to the bully boy tatics

There`s a lesson to be learned from my vid & from Wheelgd`s (Benb) vid that`s why I allowed it to go on there (yes I allowed it, I could delete any time you know that)

And yes The local youth centre has used it to educate the young kids & Benb`s vid shows a good contrast don`t you think

calm down, old I may be (only 14 years to go Dave) 

as for looking for attention why do people stick vids on youtube or come to this forum, I love it, whats wrong with that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Here we go back to the bully boy tatics
> 
> There`s a lesson to be learned from my vid & from Wheelgd`s (Benb) vid that`s why I allowed it to go on there (yes I allowed it, I could delete any time you know that)
> 
> ...



Bully Boy???? Try angry.

If the youth club use the video it is to warm kids about manics on bikes on shared pathways. Benb's video shows how it should be done.


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It looks as though the original text has been deleted but Locker did claim that his video was shown in youth clubs and the like to warn people about the dangers of not looking where they were going.




What original text was that?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> What original text was that?



From the the ASL thread in which we first saw your videos.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> What original text was that?



It's a witch hunt I tell ya


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Bully Boy???? Try angry.
> 
> If the youth club use the video it is to warm kids about manics on bikes on shared pathways. Benb's video shows how it should be done.



Why the hell are you getting angry? thats exactly what I`m on about, you again are jumping to the wrong conclusions

calm down & have a cup of tea, I am


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Why the hell are you getting angry? thats exactly what I`m on about, you again are jumping to the wrong conclusions
> 
> calm down & have a cup of tea, I am



hahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> From the the ASL thread in which we first saw your videos.




Still not sure what text you mean, what was it?


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> hahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha




back off a bit please, I`m trying be serious for a minute. thanks


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> Why the hell are you getting angry? thats exactly what I`m on about, you again are jumping to the wrong conclusions
> 
> calm down & have a cup of tea, I am


I am angry at myself for thinking you had changed. You still fail to accept the basic legal premiss that unless stated Peds have priority. You also fail to see that the big mama title is offencive on so many levels.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

locker said:


> back off a bit please, I`m trying be serious for a minute. thanks



Locker, I'm with you Buddy. I'm laughing at the wolves at the door mate not ridiculing you


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484806"]
You didn't bold the important bit-

*Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.*


[/quote]

Does it not say be prepared? Doesn't say that pedestrian safety is before cyclist safety. It says be prepared as in prepared in case of not be prepared because you have to


----------



## locker (4 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am angry at myself for thinking you had changed. You still fail to accept the basic legal premiss that unless stated Peds have priority. You also fail to see that the big mama title is offencive on so many levels.



like I said before I will not enter into debate about racism

but watch the film Big Mama with Martin Lawrence starring as Big Mama it is very funny & thats where I got the title for my vid

and again yes I was going too fast I regret hitting the poor girl (even though it didn`t show it in the vid)

I think its time this thread finished as its getting no where with so many people getting off the original subject of pedestrians


 
ps I do accept that peds have priority


----------



## Bman (4 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Does it not say be prepared? Doesn't say that pedestrian safety is before cyclist safety. It says be prepared as in prepared in case of not be prepared because you have to



These are rules for cyclists, when around pedestrians on shared spaces. Prepare to stop if you have to. For instance, if you're approaching a ped that hasnt seen you, get ready to stop. 


That means travel at a speed safe for the conditions. Its our [cyclists] responsibilty to do so.

The same goes for if a pedestrian _might_ be round that corner or _might_ walk out from behind that fountain. Get ready to stop in case they are!

+1 User, I was going to bold that bit, once I had caught up with the thread.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

Bongman said:


> These are rules for cyclists, when around pedestrians on shared spaces. Prepare to stop if you have to. For instance, if you're approaching a ped that hasnt seen you, get ready to stop.
> 
> 
> That means travel at a speed safe for the conditions. Its our [cyclists] responsibilty to do so.
> ...



Quite right it does suggest the cyclist be prepared. Can you please tell me where it identifies a right of way rather than a 'suggested' behaviour. I fully agree about realistic cycling for the right conditions but there is no real commitment to the right of way. In other sections when referring to vehicles it mentions right of way where appropriate but I cannot see it reference pedestrians and cyclists. All I see on here at the moment is a series of interpretations


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484812"]
Be prepared means expect that there might be pedestrians in your way and be ready to stop. It doesn't mean brace yourself for a collision.

Are you suggesting you shouldn't have to be ready to stop rather than ride into a pedestrian?


[/quote]

Do you actually read what anyone posts? I cannot believe you keep making stuff up. You assume far too much. Read the words


----------



## Tommi (4 Aug 2011)

Highway Code said:


> *
> **Rules for pedestrians*
> 
> *1*
> ...


While not all of it is specifically about shared paths in parks, the overall impression I get is that pedestrians actually do have responsibilities too.


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> While not all of it is specifically about shared paths in parks, the overall impression I get is that pedestrians actually do have responsibilities too.



+1


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484816"]
Everyone else can follow it. Well, apart from one other.

What it comes down to is that regardless of the responsibilities of others, you must be prepared to stop if something gets in your way. That's your responsibility -not to ride into anyone. That's not made up, it's in your own quote.

It's no different to driving on the road.
[/quote]

To quote a quote you quoted to me - Time to use the ignore function


----------



## JonnyBlade (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484816"]
Everyone else can follow it. Well, apart from one other.

What it comes down to is that regardless of the responsibilities of others, you must be prepared to stop if something gets in your way. That's your responsibility -not to ride into anyone. That's not made up, it's in your own quote.

It's no different to driving on the road.
[/quote]



Have I ever said I would not? Where humanly possible cars should stop for pedestrians. It doesn't give them the right of way on roads. There is a difference


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Not sure whether you are after the legal or the moral position. The legal position as I understand it (IANAL), is that the party that claims to have been injured due to the other party's actions would need to prove negligence on the part of that other party.
> 
> As far as the scenarios are concerned, there is not really enough information really to make a firm judgement.
> 
> ...



So then where is this old lady or child suppose to ride? As in both examples they obviously cannot ride on the road with the rest of us cyclists. And hasn't it been stated already that the park is there in part for children to *LEARN* how to ride their bikes?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Ok, I wasn't clear. I meant in both cases the cyclist behaviour would be totally responsible provided that the pedestrian behaved responsibly themselves. Why does a bicycle make you responsible for other people behaving irresponsibly? What other items have the same magic effect? Kickboard? Rollerblades? Wheelchair? Heavy backbag? Shopping bag?
> 
> 
> In a conflict between lightweight grandmother riding responsibly and a normal (i.e. obese) adult pedestrian behaving erratically I still assert it's the pedestrian bringing the biggest risk to the situation. Bicycle by itself can not be the justification for the simple reason that not all bicycles are the same and not all pedestrians are the same.



Tommi,

I agree with your logic. And would also like a clear answer as to why if the cyclist is behaving in a responsible manner that the other person's irresponsible behavior doesn't matter.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484717"]
Neglect is neglect. And the reality is a whole lot different from what the tabloids or the staged TV shows would have you believe.

No-one will be investigated by social services for letting their children run around in a park.

Now stop being ridiculous.


[/quote]

You clearly have no idea how things work here in the States. Yes, if a parent here in the States was to take their children to a park and allowed their *TODDLERS *to "roam free" they would/could very well find themselves in the center of a child abuse/neglect investigation. Particularly here in Florida where as I have said before there are plenty of natural dangers, i.e. alligators, poisonous snakes, poisonous plants, lakes, the bay/gulf/ocean, etc. A child needs to be supervised. And not allowed to just go off anywhere by him or herself.

Plus there is the chance that the child could prove to be a bother to someone else who is trying to enjoy the park, or who could get into trouble because they have willfully damaged private or public property.

Older children, yes are given more freedom to run or roam free, but even still they need parental supervision. And if you'll recall the original age group discussed was toddlers not children in general. Toddlers are the ones who are at the most risk and need the most supervision. All of my friends who have children agree with me that if a parent were to go to a park and allow their *TODDLER* to "roam free" would find themselves in the middle of a child abuse/neglect investigation.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484718"]
I've never disagreed with that. Your position is and always has been that the hazards on paths are the things that get in your way, not that run into you. Flower pickers and unpredictable children do not run into cyclists. Children may run into your path, and then it's your responsibility not to ride into them.

I don't see how it could be any clearer.
[/quote]

Flower pickers need to exercise self-control and not put themselves in a position where they might be hit by a cyclist, and children need to be properly supervised by their parents so as not to be at risk of just "wandering" into one's path.

And I do, do everything that I humanly can to avoid running into small children and dogs. However it is unrealistic to expect either a car or a bicycle to stop on a dime just because some bloody pedestrian ran into their path.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484721"]
Then you were riding too fast. Again, it's simple.



Yes, it would be right for you to stop. No-one would have run into you.

You've claimed that the impact speed was 18mph. You were riding too fast.



[/quote]

At the fastest I was traveling around 5 or 6MPH, silly me, I wasn't watching my computer instead I choose to watch the people walking. I was probably going slower than 5 or 6MPH. And as I said there were people walking behind me, so yes any one of them could have walked into me if I had stopped suddenly to avoid the gal who was in front of me.


----------



## joebingo (4 Aug 2011)

Is this thread still going?

*yawn*


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If a pedestrian suddenly changes direction, and there is a collision, *the cyclist was too close and/or going too fast.
> *
> Pedestrians are unpredictable, so we need to be extra vigilant on shared use paths.



That is starting to sound like some sort of mantra. The cyclist is always at fault and the pedestrian doesn't have any responsibility for *THEIR* own safety. Using that "logic" then the motorist who hit my brother (even though said motorist was going slowly) is at fault. And that instead of driving his car, he should have been out behind it pushing it up the hill, as after all he was in a car and brought the "greater risk" to the other road users.

You do get how ridiculous that sounds, right?

If pedestrians are also acting in a responsible and predictable manner that will also help to make things safer. As I've said I've seen plenty of people out walking with their iPods set to such high volumes that if anyone shouted a warning to them they (the pedestrian) would never hear it.

I guess that if a parent is out walking on a shared path pushing a stroller in front of them and suddenly and without warning turns and hits someone with the stroller it's the other person's fault for being too close?


----------



## benb (4 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Tommi,
> 
> I agree with your logic. And would also like a clear answer as to why if the cyclist is behaving in a responsible manner that the other person's irresponsible behavior doesn't matter.



If the cyclist is behaving responsibly, the likelihood of a collision is pretty much zero. (suicidal pedestrians hiding behind bushes and leaping into your path notwithstanding)
And pedestrians zigzagging erratically isn't irresponsible - it's normal pedestrian behaviour.

I'm going to keep saying this until you understand: if a pedestrian suddenly stops or changes direction and there is a collision, the cyclist was passing them too close, or going too fast, or both.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> its seems that DC is unto some sort of psychological defence mechanism. trying to rationalise what his done is right but the facts that is presented confirms that it all doesnt add up.
> for example, how would he know that people walking behind him will run into him? thats very unrealistic isnt it?



Uh, because I have a wonderful invention called a *MIRROR* attached to my helmet that lets me see what is behind me. That is how I knew that there were people behind me that would have run into me if I had stopped.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Not that weird if you think about it.
> 
> The law is clear - pedestrians have right of way on UK cycle paths / pavements.
> 
> ...



Agreed, but a pedestrian doesn't have to be "hiding" behind a tree to be a risk. If they're listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear what is going on around them and then do something irresponsible/unpredictable it's their fault if they get hit.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (4 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Lets see, points brought up so far:
> 
> right of way does not mean you have priority
> priority does not absolve you of responsibility
> ...



To me that seems to be the gist of it, pedestrian never ever wrong, cyclist always wrong, even when pedestrian is wrong cyclist is still more wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, but a pedestrian doesn't have to be "hiding" behind a tree to be a risk. If they're listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear what is going on around them and then do something irresponsible/unpredictable it's their fault if they get hit.


So by your logic a deaf person is screwed.


----------



## Tommi (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484835"]
A cyclist is at fault if he rides into a pedestrian.
[/quote]
Even if the pedestrian, like yourself, ignores the "Always show due care and consideration for others." part of Highway Code for pedestrians?


----------



## just jim (4 Aug 2011)

"Irresponsible" and "unpredictable" are two different modes of behaviour; terms which you have crowbarred together for your own convenience.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484844"]
That's the crux.
[/quote]
Paul, you have the patience of a saint!


----------



## mangaman (5 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Bus and cycle lanes. Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic.
> 
> 
> *13*
> ...



Thanks for agreeing with me!

So - to quote-

"Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you"

I don't know how you can read this and not understand that when riding on shared used paths we should be prepared to slow down or stop if necessary - as endless people have been saying. It's common decency and the law. 
I rarely use the (excellant) shared use facilities near me as the roads are better.

If I do it's a recreational pootle - which is what they are designed for.

It's pretty staightforward I would have thought - I'm still bemused by it passing 40 pages!


----------



## JonnyBlade (5 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Thanks for agreeing with me!
> 
> So - to quote-
> 
> ...



I think it's funny




All I tried to suggest was that it was a shared responsibility with shared rights and that was turned into me complaining that children should not be allowed on the paths, not wanting to stop for pedestrians and a whole load more fiction. More than a couple on here have experienced bully boy tactics which I feel have been a little harsh
Still it's been a great debate!


----------



## mangaman (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, but a pedestrian doesn't have to be "hiding" behind a tree to be a risk. If they're listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear what is going on around them and then do something irresponsible/unpredictable it's their fault if they get hit.



True - but you can see that.

Or should I say I can.

I shouldn't extrapolate to you, that would be unfair.

I rarely use shared paths - eg to a park other than to reach the park. I use the roads as my speed differential with a car is a lot less than with a child / dog / older person while riding seriously (eg commuting).

If I do pootle into a park, I tend to look in front of me and assess hazards. People with headphones on are not hard to spot. You have to slow down or stop around them.

In the US it may be fine to barrell over such people?

Here, it would be considered your fault if you rode into a pedestrian, i-podded up or not. I think we have it right, frankly.

If parks are serious commuter routes over in Florida, you need either a legal restriction on peds on such paths, or to be more ped friendly.

I'd be interested in the State law on the legal position on shared paths if you can provide it.


----------



## Tommi (5 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> I don't know how you can read this and not understand that when riding on shared used paths we should be prepared to slow down or stop if necessary - as endless people have been saying. It's common decency and the law.


I've no problem stopping in time around pedestrians who "show due care and consideration for others" and "Take extra care where [cycle paths are not segregated]" - curious how you chose to ignore that part in your quote.


----------



## mangaman (5 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> I've no problem stopping in time around pedestrians who "show due care and consideration for others" and "Take extra care where [cycle paths are not segregated]" - curious how you chose to ignore that part in your quote.



Er - there is no such thing in the UK as a segregated cycle path where pedestians are not allowed.

There is no path where cyclists only are allowed.

It's that simple. Motorways are only for cars and pathways are only for walkers.

Horses, bikes and peds have equal rights on all other routes in this country.

This is not a complicated topic - it's been done to death I fear.

There will be inconsiderate people on foot / bike / car of course - but please as a cyclist on a cycle path don't try to weasle out if you hit someone.

It's your fault. That's really all I can think of to say.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OK to simplify even more.
> 
> _*If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.*_



So you don't consider the pedestrian plugged into their iPod at full volume, eye's glued on their cell/mobile phone and completely and totally oblivious to everything around them, even the verbal warning that a cyclist is approaching them to be malicious?


----------



## Tommi (5 Aug 2011)

mangaman said:


> Er - there is no such thing in the UK as a segregated cycle path where pedestians are not allowed.


Err, who's saying anything about pedestrians not being allowed somewhere? (I did ask earlier whether cyclists have exclusive use of anything and it turns out no.) However as my quote was about *non*-segregated cycle paths so I fail to see your point.

My quotes are from Highway Code, you should probably read it. That's really all I can think of to say.


----------



## benb (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> So you don't consider the pedestrian plugged into their iPod at full volume, eye's glued on their cell/mobile phone and completely and totally oblivious to everything around them, even the verbal warning that a cyclist is approaching them to be malicious?



No, because you're posing the risk to them, not the other way round. Why not just make sure that when you pass them you leave enough room so that if they change direction suddenly you still won't hit them?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> See. You don't think that if a pedestrian on a path stops or changes direction, and there is a collision, that it's your fault for not leaving enough room or going too fast.
> 
> You are plain, flat, wrong.



How much space is enough? What happens when said pedestrian stops, changes directions and starts running in the direction of the cyclist? That does happen. I've seen pedestrian suddenly stop, change directions and start running. If there was a cyclist following behind at a previously safe distance gets hit by the now running pedestrian, I'm guessing that in your mind that the cyclist is still at fault. And was somehow either traveling too fast or was too close to the pedestrian in question, or both.

I'm sorry, but that is totally asinine. If the pedestrian is behaving in an unpredictable manner, and suddenly and without warning changes direction and speed how is the cyclist suppose to know what they are planning on doing? Why shouldn't they take responsibility for their own safety and behave in a predictable manner?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484778"]
You're being offensive by referring to her weight, and you're using a racist term.

This isn't some forties Tom and Jerry cartoon.

If you didn't realise that you were using term which has underlying racist tones, then fair enough. I assume you'll now stop using it, and change the title of your youtube clip?


[/quote]

I've heard the term "big mama" applied to any large woman regardless of race, the same with the term "big daddy." I think that you are reading too much into the use of the term "big mama."


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am angry at myself for thinking you had changed. You still fail to accept the basic legal premiss that unless stated Peds have priority. You also fail to see that the big mama title is offencive on so many levels.



I thought that it was your's, Benb's, and User's position that Peds *ALWAYS* had "priority" regardless of where they were. Are you now admitting that there are times/places where they don't have "automatic priority?"


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484826"]
Cycle paths are for all cyclists.
[/quote]

But Peds still have "priority," right? Even though it's a "*CYCLE* path."


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I thought that it was your's, Benb's, and User's position that Peds *ALWAYS* had "priority" regardless of where they were. Are you now admitting that there are times/places where they don't have "automatic priority?"



No you are getting confused. In all the places we have talked about Peds have priority. If a Ped goes walking along a Black MTB route then they are at fault. If a ped walks along a road that is signed no pedestrians they are at fault. We have not discussed any of those places.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484828"]
Your issue is with your definition of irresponsible.
[/quote]

To me it is irresponsible for a person to be listening to their iPod at such a volume that the person doing so doesn't know what is going on around them, the same with using their cell/mobile phone or using both to the point where they do not know what is going on around them.

It is also irresponsible for one to take their children to a park and all their toddlers to "roam free" and be a potential problem for others trying to enjoy the park.

And it is irresponsible for someone walking down a cycle path to have priority over cyclists who should have priority on a *CYCLE* path. How logical is it to give Peds priority on a path that is clearly designed for cyclists?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> To me it is irresponsible for a person to be listening to their iPod at such a volume that the person doing so doesn't know what is going on around them, the same with using their cell/mobile phone or using both to the point where they do not know what is going on around them.
> 
> It is also irresponsible for one to take their children to a park and all their toddlers to "roam free" and be a potential problem for others trying to enjoy the park.
> 
> And it is irresponsible for someone walking down a cycle path to have priority over cyclists who should have priority on a *CYCLE* path. How logical is it to give Peds priority on a path that is clearly designed for cyclists?



So by your definition it is irresponsible for a deaf person to be out walking without a hearing dog!!!!


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484829"]
Sorry, bud, but it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Your lot borrow a lot of child protection response from us.

Another thing that you're doing is making bold claims, and then using extremes to justify your position.

No-one is put under investigation for allowing their child to run around in a park, to the level that they might (how dare they!!) end up on a path where someone is cycling. Now stop being ridiculous.

Can you not understand the difference between an alligator and a cyclist? If you can't, there's no hope.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but it is *YOU* who doesn't know what they're talking about. I live here in Florida, I have seen the cases on the news on TV where parents have found themselves the center of an investigation because of their actions or in actions.

I live in Florida, I know about the dangers that "lurk" in the parks. Where I live there are two parks/wildlife preserves/refugees. That are home to poisonous snakes, alligators, wild cats, coyotes, wolves. Then there are the poisonous plants.

A couple of years ago, there was a woman down here on vacation/holiday from somewhere up north. She was visiting one of the parks on the Hillsborough river, possibly the Hillsborough State Park. She'd let her little dog off of it's leash (a violation of the leash law) and it was attacked and eaten by an alligator. One of the first question that she asked was "why aren't there more signs warning people about alligators?" How many signs are needed?

This is Florida, any decent size body of water likely houses one or more alligators. They literally are everywhere down here. So much so that there are trappers who make a living going into neighborhoods to remove so-called "nuisance" alligators. Somewhere in the state someone looses a dog or a cat or worse a child to an alligator on an almost daily basis.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I'm sorry, but it is *YOU* who doesn't know what they're talking about. I live here in Florida, I have seen the cases on the news on TV where parents have found themselves the center of an investigation because of their actions or in actions.
> 
> I live in Florida, I know about the dangers that "lurk" in the parks. Where I live there are two parks/wildlife preserves/refugees. That are home to poisonous snakes, alligators, wild cats, coyotes, wolves. Then there are the poisonous plants.
> 
> ...


Maybe we could have a differences between UK and USA sub forum?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> If the cyclist is behaving responsibly, the likelihood of a collision is pretty much zero. (suicidal pedestrians hiding behind bushes and leaping into your path notwithstanding)
> And pedestrians zigzagging erratically isn't irresponsible - it's normal pedestrian behaviour.
> 
> I'm going to keep saying this until you understand: if a pedestrian suddenly stops or changes direction and there is a collision, the cyclist was passing them too close, or going too fast, or both.



Maybe it's "normal" pedestrian behavior in the UK, but it is not normal pedestrian behavior over here. About the only ones over here who would be "zigzagging" or behaving in some sort of erratic behavior are drunks and drug addicts and they'd be stopped by the police and given a field sobriety test.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484832"]
Flower pickers don't run into your path.

It is correct to expect cyclists not to collide with something in their path. 

So you do everything to avoid running into children and dogs, but not a young women in a crowd?



[/quote]

Why the bloody hell do you keep harping on one isolated incident? And how many times do I have to say that if I had stopped it would have caused a much worse crash involving the people behind me?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484833"]
You said she was travelling at twice your speed. That's an impact of 18mph.

If you had stopped, and someone walked into you from behind without slowing (they wouldn't have, but I'll play) then it would have been an impact speed of 3mph.
[/quote]

That is a guess as I wasn't looking at my computer, all I know is that she was moving faster then I was.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484835"]
A cyclist is at fault if he rides into a pedestrian.

Again (your ipod example) you seem to keep giving excuses for riding into people. Yes, headphones wearers can be annoying, but you just have to deal with them.



[/quote]

I'll tell you what, tomorrow when I go out for my ride I'll keep track of the number of people that I see walking or running while listening to their iPods. Today when I was on my ride I had two runners in front of me with several yards between us. Both were running faster than I was riding and both had their iPods in.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I'll tell you what, tomorrow when I go out for my ride I'll keep track of the number of people that I see walking or running while listening to their iPods. Today when I was on my ride I had two runners in front of me with several yards between us. Both were running faster than I was riding and both had their iPods in.



Were there any collisions or near collisions?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So by your logic a deaf person is screwed.



No, but given that they're the one at risk it's on them to remain safe. Such as deaf drivers at least here in the States are required by law to have more and/or larger mirrors on their car.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> No, but given that they're the one at risk it's on them to remain safe. Such as deaf drivers at least here in the States are required by law to have more and/or larger mirrors on their car.



I am talking about peds as well you know.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484840"]
A pedestrian wearing headphones is no risk to a cyclist. The headphones only stop them being aware of you, not vice versa. If you've seen them, you know they've got headphones on and are less likely to hear you so you deal with them slightly differently. That's all.

I pass about 5 headphones wearers every day on a narrow path on my commute. In 8 years not one of them has ever been a risk to me. 


[/quote]

Lucky you. I pass more than that, they're also usually to distracted by their cell/mobile phone.

I would have to argue with you, in that in order to take evasive action to avoid hitting them I end up running into a tree/bush/fence or what have you to avoid them. As a distracted person is placing everyone else around them at risk. 

Those who are talking on their cell/mobile phone are so distracted by said conversation that their reaction time is worse then someone who is drunk. Just a couple of weeks ago I had two close calls with drivers who were so distracted by their cell/mobile phone conversation while driving that they didn't see me and cut me off and almost hit me.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484842"]
Nope, no-one is saying that. All that's being said is that cyclists are responsible for dealing with what's in front of them appropriately.

And in your case, you should have stopped.
[/quote]

Your comments that a pedestrian can behave in any manner they want and that cyclists have to somehow be able to read their mind to know where they are going seems to contradict what you have just said.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484843"]
If I see a pedestrian in front of me, where he shouldn't be, and I still ride into him, then the collision is a result of my action, not his.
[/quote]

Ah, but *IF* the pedestrian *HADN'T* been where s/he *WASN'T* suppose be to then they would *NOT* have been in any danger of being hit by anyone. So it's *THEIR* action (or lack thereof) that caused them to be hit.

As I've said before (I believe) on one of the main multi use/shared path here in St. Pete the Pinellas Trail. It is clearly marked that pedestrians are to remain on the right side and cyclists are to remain on the left side. The only "pedestrian" allowed to be on the cyclist side of the trail are runners and skaters. Otherwise pedestrians are required and expected to remain on their side of the trail. Also those who are walking dogs are required to keep their dogs on a leash no longer then 6'.

Today (04 August) while I was on the final leg of my ride there was a gal who was behaving in an irresponsible manner. She had a small dog on one of those stupid retractable leashes and was allowing it to run willy nilly all over the path, with it's leash stretched out across the path creating a trip hazard to other users.

If someone was jogging or cycling and got caught in the leash it would have been her fault for not having had better control of her dog.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1484844"]
That's the crux. 


[/quote]

But it is possible for one to be behaving in both an irresponsible and unpredictable manner.


----------



## benb (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How much space is enough? What happens when said pedestrian stops, changes directions and starts running in the direction of the cyclist? That does happen. I've seen pedestrian suddenly stop, change directions and start running. If there was a cyclist following behind at a previously safe distance gets hit by the now running pedestrian, I'm guessing that in your mind that the cyclist is still at fault. And was somehow either traveling too fast or was too close to the pedestrian in question, or both.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is totally asinine. If the pedestrian is behaving in an unpredictable manner, and suddenly and without warning changes direction and speed how is the cyclist suppose to know what they are planning on doing? Why shouldn't they take responsibility for their own safety and behave in a predictable manner?



It's very telling that you constantly have to resort to extreme and implausible scenarios to defend your position.

The above could never happen to a responsible cyclist, because they would have left enough room for the sudden change of direction to not be an issue, and by the time the ped had started running they would have stopped.

Pedestrians do behave unpredictably. It's not irresponsible, it's just normal behaviour.


----------



## benb (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Why the bloody hell do you keep harping on one isolated incident? And how many times do I have to say that if I had stopped it would have caused a much worse crash involving the people behind me?



Because you're talking bollocks. You were completely surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians. Straight away that means you should have stopped and walked.

If you were going at 4mph, and the lady you hit was going (as you said, double your speed) at 8mph that's a 12mph impact.
If you had stopped, the people walking behind would probably have had time to avoid you at that low speed, and even if they hadn't it would be an impact of <3mph.

Your justification for just carrying on and not avoiding the collision just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> It's very telling that you constantly have to resort to extreme and implausible scenarios to defend your position.
> 
> The above could never happen to a responsible cyclist, because they would have left enough room for the sudden change of direction to not be an issue, and by the time the ped had started running they would have stopped.
> 
> Pedestrians do behave unpredictably. It's not irresponsible, it's just normal behaviour.



DC is now so deep in a hole he has nowhere to turn  Or maybe it's possible that people in Florida do behave in this way and we are being very unfair on him.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Because you're talking bollocks. You were completely surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians. Straight away that means you should have stopped and walked.
> 
> If you were going at 4mph, and the lady you hit was going (as you said, double your speed) at 8mph that's a 12mph impact.
> If you had stopped, the people walking behind would probably have had time to avoid you at that low speed, and even if they hadn't it would be an impact of <3mph.
> ...



Ah but the Policeman told him it was ok to ride so he _*blindly*_ followed the instructions.


----------



## benb (5 Aug 2011)

I'm done with this thread. I refuse to believe that someone can be as obtuse as Digital_Cowboy and still function as a human, so I think he's just winding us up.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I'm done with this thread. I refuse to believe that someone can be as obtuse as Digital_Cowboy and still function as a human, so I think he's just winding us up.



Ben I'm with you. Well not in that sense but you know what I mean


----------



## just jim (5 Aug 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> But it is possible fo
> r one to be behaving in both an irresponsible and unpredictable manner.



That would be your scary bloke deliberately jumping out from behind a tree into your path, not a scared bloke jumping into your path whilst running away from a hungry alligator. The 'gator may or may not be persuing with an iPod on listening to AC/DC's greatest hits.


----------



## benb (5 Aug 2011)

just jim said:


> That would be your scary bloke deliberately jumping out from behind a tree into your path, not a scared bloke jumping into your path whilst running away from a hungry alligator. The 'gator may or may not be persuing with an iPod on listening to AC/DC's greatest hits.



Surely the gator would be listening to Swamp Thing by Malcolm McLaren.


----------



## Shaun (5 Aug 2011)

There's been ample opportunity for everyone to state their case, so I'm drawing this thread to a close as it's starting to get a bit too personal.

You'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------

