Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   A man on the MUP, carrying a big stick... (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/887399-man-mup-carrying-big-stick.html)

bikebreak 05-04-13 08:52 PM

The law here is that on the road cars must give a bike at least 3 feet when passing. So it makes sense to give pedestrians at least 3 feet, more if they have headphones/dogs/are daydreaming.

Using a bell is also sensible and CYA if the other party makes trouble: "officer, I rang my bell and announced I was passing on the left"

FBinNY 05-04-13 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15588846)
Am I the only one thinking this BUT is it possible there is an equal percentage of jerks on bikes, jerks in cars, jerks walking, jerks walking dogs, jerks running and an equal percentage of responsible people on bikes, in cars, walking, walking dogs and running. And that this is because they are all just people and people can be jerks and people can be responsible and anything in between.

+1, In any random of people pulled from any class, you'll find a similar distribution of good, bad, and just plain crazy. I can't control that, nor predict what any encounter may bring, so I try to stay focused on my own conduct, which is something more under my control.



Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15588846)

The guy walking with the stick is a paranoid, aggressive jerk looking for a paranoid, aggressive guy on a bike to mix it up with...

That's an assumption. Since we have no report of what he did with his stick, it's just as possible that he's a nervous person who's had a few too many scares at the hands of what he sees as kamikaze cyclists. Even with the best of control, passing people at high speed makes them nervous. After all they have no way of knowing your skill level and attentiveness.

We see plenty of posts relating to overly close passes by cars, combined with a high speed differential. Looking from the perspective of a pedestrian, some may feel the same way as we fly by.

kalliergo 05-04-13 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15588295)
Anti cyclist mentality doesn't only pertain to just MUPs, today, a local family that was having a yard sale, decided to put an orange construction cone in the middle of a bike lane that I was traveling in, so as to slow down cyclists "speeding" past their house, and not hit any of their patrons.

Well, the only problem I see with that is that they placed it in the middle of the BL. If it had been placed more thoughtfully (say, on the BL stripe), I would think of it as an appropriate warning of extra/unusual activity at the location -- sensible suggestion to slow down and pay attention.

plumberroy 05-04-13 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15588846)
Am I the only one thinking this BUT is it possible there is an equal percentage of jerks on bikes, jerks in cars, jerks walking, jerks walking dogs, jerks running and an equal percentage of responsible people on bikes, in cars, walking, walking dogs and running. And that this is because they are all just people and people can be jerks and people can be responsible and anything in between.

It would be an illusion and a kind of ethnocentrism to assume the group to which you belonged had a smaller # of jerks.

The guy walking with the stick is a paranoid, aggressive jerk looking for a paranoid, aggressive guy on a bike to mix it up with...

It's basic territorial imperative, some people just never learned to share space.

Agreed , In my experience, in this area the cyclist jerks are almost always full kitted road bikers. Even the 98% of kitted out road biker that were not jerks were 1. not announcing passing 2. blowing stop signs both are trail use rules and the second will get you killed. there are two markers at road crossings on the trail I rode today for people who blew stop signs one to many time
Roy

kalliergo 05-04-13 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 009jim (Post 15588262)
If you like the idea of riding fairly fast and passing stuff close, I fail to understand why you chose to ride on the MUP. Wouldn't you enjoy it heaps more out on the road? On the road you can really hammer it and buzz past stuff and they will no-doubt buzz past you and it will be enjoyable much more than the boring old MUP.

+a bunch.

Real bicycle tough guys would forget the MUP and the weird guy with the stick and go tangle with opponents who can fight back. :)

dynodonn 05-04-13 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15588964)
Well, the only problem I see with that is that they placed it in the middle of the BL. If it had been placed more thoughtfully (say, on the BL stripe), I would think of it as an appropriate warning of extra/unusual activity at the location -- sensible suggestion to slow down and pay attention.


When it comes to thinking about the cycling community, a number of the general public really have their heads up their asses, especially when the bike lane has a two lane one way street adjacent to it. I didn't see any cones placed in the middle of each of the traffic lanes that have traffic moving at 30 to 40 mph. Damn those "speed demon" cyclists traveling at a break neck speed of 15 to 18 mph.

kalliergo 05-04-13 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15589223)
I didn't see any cones placed in the middle of each of the traffic lanes that have traffic moving at 30 to 40 mph. Damn those "speed demon" cyclists traveling at a break neck speed of 15 to 18 mph.

That's probably because, thanks to the bike lane, the motorists were far enough away from the activity around the sale not to threaten it. But cyclists were not. (Just guessing here, unless you point us to a map/satellite shot.)

If there were two lanes of traffic going in your direction, plus the bike lane, why was it difficult to change lanes for a few feet to avoid the marked potential hazard?

CommuteCommando 05-04-13 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15588846)
Am I the only one thinking this BUT is it possible there is an equal percentage of jerks on bikes, jerks in cars, jerks walking, jerks walking dogs, jerks running and an equal percentage of responsible people on bikes, in cars, walking, walking dogs and running. And that this is because they are all just people and people can be jerks and people can be responsible and anything in between.

Of course. The corollary of this is all those cyclists that assume that collisions between bikes and cars are always the motorists fault.

Burton 05-05-13 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommuteCommando (Post 15589292)
Of course. The corollary of this is all those cyclists that assume that collisions between bikes and cars are always the motorists fault.

This week alone have had three regular customers bring in high end bikes for repairs after collisions. They also had a lot of raw and bleeding skin to show for the encounter but luckily - nothing broken.

Except that - these were collisions with other cyclists on a bicycle path! Oh yeah - thats the same place that's supposed to be safer for kids than cycling in the street. If its not safe for adults - I have my doubts.

dynodonn 05-05-13 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15589282)
That's probably because, thanks to the bike lane, the motorists were far enough away from the activity around the sale not to threaten it. But cyclists were not. (Just guessing here, unless you point us to a map/satellite shot.)

If there were two lanes of traffic going in your direction, plus the bike lane, why was it difficult to change lanes for a few feet to avoid the marked potential hazard?


The construction cone in question can be easily circumvented by switching lanes, this incident just goes to show how some in the general public will view the cycling community. Obstructing a lane to slow or stop traffic that is already going slow, but think nothing about their patrons crossing a busy two lane street, with traffic speeds of 30 to 40 mph, to reach their yard sale.

eja_ bottecchia 05-05-13 08:46 AM

I don't ride MUPs, there are perfectly good roads in and around where I live.

What I can't stand is when yentas, pushing huge baby strollers, invade the bike lanes and walk, 3 or 4 abreast, yakking it up and then expect me to ride into traffic to accomodate their fat asses. :notamused:

mjsocal 05-05-13 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15580137)
Nah. People hate being startled or feeling intimidated.



They won't, so maybe we should consider dealing with reality in ways that might realistically address the problem.

So far, I don't see much discussion developing here that seems all that relevant to the OP's request.

Comments appreciated. You are one of the few that is being relevant and rational while maintaining an easy going nature (a common trait among people from the SF bay area).

There have been a few threads about peds and runners on the MUPs. Someone once said the runners are like the deputies on the trails. They watch out for the speeding cyclists and the slower moving peds all at the same time and adjust accordingly so the wandering pedestrian does not get hit. I'm not sure what "joggers" refers to.

It's good to use the MUPs with some ethics and safety in mind, and that includes peds, runners, joggers and cyclists.

kalliergo 05-05-13 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia (Post 15589936)
What I can't stand is when yentas, pushing huge baby strollers, invade the bike lanes and walk, 3 or 4 abreast, yakking it up and then expect me to ride into traffic to accomodate their fat asses. :notamused:

1. "Yenta" general means something like "old gossip" -- just for future reference. Are groups of grandmothers pushing the strollers where you ride?

2. Could you share with us a map location or photograph of the situation you are describing? I'd like to see whether there's a better place for the stroller-pushers to walk and whether there's really any problem with your having to merge into the adjacent lane to pass them.

mjsocal 05-05-13 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burton (Post 15589867)
This week alone have had three regular customers bring in high end bikes for repairs after collisions. They also had a lot of raw and bleeding skin to show for the encounter but luckily - nothing broken.

Except that - these were collisions with other cyclists on a bicycle path! Oh yeah - thats the same place that's supposed to be safer for kids than cycling in the street. If its not safe for adults - I have my doubts.

This makes a lot of sense. I will use them cautiously but I won't let my child use them. There are other reasons besides accidents for not allowing your child to use particular MUPs.

mjsocal 05-05-13 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camilo (Post 15585260)
Which is a perfectly reasonable expectation on any path shared by pedestrians, in my experience. My rule of thumb is don't pass a pedestrian any faster than you could run past him/her - say 6 or 7 mph.

They have as much right to being safe and carefree on the path as anyone. Running or walking 2 abreast is a perfectly normal and expected way to use an MUP. Kids weaving around is perfectly normal and expected. Dogs on leashes longer than 2 feet is normal and expected.

the question then is how to deal with these normal and expected uses? Slowly, courteously.

I ride on the road if i have to go fast, or ride slowly if I have to ride on an MUP. Easy.

That makes sense. Smart choice. When I drive, I slow down significantly and give cyclists 3 feet or more if I can (and that's not required in my state unfortunately). Good to have the same mentality on the MUP.

FBinNY 05-05-13 11:02 AM

How can we hold out any hope for world peace if folks can't even get along while enjoying a walk, run, or bike in the park?

Grow up
, this is a park path intended for leisure enjoyment of the outdoors, not a thruway. It's intended to be shared, so treat those you pass as you would a neighbor or friend, with the degree of courtesy needed to get along.

BTW- please take this as an "if the shoe fits...." kind of comment, But I'm always surprised and disappointed by the whiny, bellyaching, put upon tone I find in many of the posts on the advocacy forum. Many sound like spoiled children crying because another child borrowed your toys.

I'm not talking about the debate pro or con about segregated bike lanes, but about how possessive some folks are about them. God forbid someone leave an obstacle in them, or do anything to get in your way. If there were a pothole, you'd simply swing around it without a word of complaint, but if a human should be there you want him drawn and quartered.

As a cyclist, I fight hard to disabuse motorists of the notion that roadways are exclusively theirs, yet on this forum I see theis same motorist attitude except on 2 wheels.

mjsocal 05-05-13 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15590266)
How can we hold out any hope for world peace if folks can't even get along while enjoying a walk, run, or bike in the park?

Grow up
, this is a park path intended for leisure enjoyment of the outdoors, not a thruway. It's intended to be shared, so treat those you pass as you would a neighbor or friend, with the degree of courtesy needed to get along.

BTW- please take this as an "if the shoe fits...." kind of comment, But I'm always surprised and disappointed by the whiny, bellyaching, put upon tone I find in many of the posts on the advocacy forum. Many sound like spoiled children crying because another child borrowed your toys.

I'm not talking about the debate pro or con about segregated bike lanes, but about how possessive some folks are about them. God forbid someone leave an obstacle in them, or do anything to get in your way. If there were a pothole, you'd simply swing around it without a word of complaint, but if a human should be there you want him drawn and quartered.

As a cyclist, I fight hard to disabuse motorists of the notion that roadways are exclusively theirs, yet on this forum I see theis same motorist attitude except on 2 wheels.

+1 That about sums it up.

dynodonn 05-05-13 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15590266)

I'm not talking about the debate pro or con about segregated bike lanes, but about how possessive some folks are about them. God forbid someone leave an obstacle in them, or do anything to get in your way. If there were a pothole, you'd simply swing around it without a word of complaint, but if a human should be there you want him drawn and quartered.

Have an average citizen place a construction cone the middle of traffic lane to slow down motor vehicles passing by their yard sale, and then see how long before law enforcement arrives to remove it.
Cyclists, for the most part, take a back seat when it comes to rational thought by a number in the general public. You may refer to it as "whining", I see it as a serious disconnect of thought in the general public's mind when it comes to motorized and non motorized road users.

As for the pothole, I will report it to the public works department as soon as I'm able to do so, especially if it's located in bike lane.

kalliergo 05-05-13 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15590266)
As a cyclist, I fight hard to disabuse motorists of the notion that roadways are exclusively theirs, yet on this forum I see the same motorist attitude except on 2 wheels.

Big +1.

dynodonn 05-05-13 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15590266)

As a cyclist, I fight hard to disabuse motorists of the notion that roadways are exclusively theirs, yet on this forum I see theis same motorist attitude except on 2 wheels.

What good is implementing cycling infrastructure if a number in the general public will not treat it seriously, and a number in the cycling community are willing to maintain the status quo.

Conan 05-05-13 11:49 AM

Some of our local trails are divided into two trails, one for walkers, and one for bikers. Seems like a better system... One time I was riding a gravel trail coming up on a jogger. I altered her several times I was coming, yet no reaction. Then I saw her headphones. At the exact same time I was passing her she decided to do a U-turn without even looking what was coming, well she nearly got ran over, like about a hairs width away. What an idiot. I stopped to tell her so.

FBinNY 05-05-13 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15590329)
Have an average citizen place a construction cone the middle of traffic lane to slow down motor vehicles passing by their yard sale, and then see how long before law enforcement arrives to remove it.
Cyclists, for the most part, take a back seat when it comes to rational thought by a number in the general public. You may refer to it as "whining", I see it as a serious disconnect of thought in the general public's mind when it comes to motorized and non motorized road users.

As for the pothole, I will report it to the public works department as soon as I'm able to do so, especially if it's located in bike lane.

I guess the shoe fits. I have a business on a public street, and we often have to unload trucks that are parallel parked. Using a forklift involves crossing into the now single lane, so we stage traffic cones upstream to slow traffic. Yes, some drivers get impatient, but not many, but not once in 20+ years has anyone, police officer or civilian suggested removing it.

The first lesson you learn in any city is that you have to go along to get along. (and vice versa).

As for the impact of a cone in a bikeway I Paraphrase Rick Blaine in Casablanca "but it doesn't take much to see that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world".

FBinNY 05-05-13 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15590366)
What good is implementing cycling infrastructure if a number in the general public will not treat it seriously, and a number in the cycling community are willing to maintain the status quo.

I'm not talking big picture here, we all have differing opinions on the value of bikeways. I'm talking on the out-upon minority, victim mentality that I see in what I characterize as crybaby posts here. If cyclists are right to be so whiny about what they see as interference with their right to zip along bike paths, and more significantly multi-use paths, then motorists are equally right to complain about unloading trucks, and cyclists getting in their way. Since we tend to agree that motorist possessiveness of the roads is misplaced, it follows that it's equally wrong when applied to cyclists.

I mean this sincerely, but I hope for everyone, that the worst problem they encounter in the next few days is someone or something in their way on the bike lane. Get a grip folks, this is so far down the spectrum of life problems that if you can't take it, you'll be facing a short life of high blood pressure and strokes.

kalliergo 05-05-13 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15590366)
What good is implementing cycling infrastructure if a number in the general public will not treat it seriously, and a number in the cycling community are willing to maintain the status quo.

But you're not talking about treating it "seriously" -- you seem to want it treated as sacrosanct.

It seems to me that the proper reaction to that cone in the middle of the BL would be to stop briefly and explain to the yard sale folks that it would be more effective and safer to put it on the lane line. Then, move it for them.

But, if you want to get all exercised about these sorts of things, come visit me and we can go for a weekend ride, stopping dozens of times to toss A-frame real estate signs away from sidewalks and bike lanes and crosswalks. Now, that's righteous fun.

dynodonn 05-05-13 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15590419)

I mean this sincerely, but I hope for everyone, that the worst problem they encounter in the next few days is someone or something in their way on the bike lane. Get a grip folks, this is so far down the spectrum of life problems that if you can't take it, you'll be facing a short life of high blood pressure and strokes.

This isn't a case of someone inadvertently stepping out into a bike lane, this is was a deliberate and misguided thought on someone's part, with their knowing full well what they were doing.

Illegally block a traffic lane used by motor vehicles, and expect some legal repercussions, illegally block a bike lane or cycling infrastructure, and one can expect a public service announcement.

http://www.yovenice.com/2012/04/04/i...bicycle-lanes/

Again, a serious thought disconnect by a number in the general public towards cyclists and cycling infrastructure in general.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 PM.