Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Cellphones, earplugs a major enemy to cycling safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/889746-cellphones-earplugs-major-enemy-cycling-safety.html)

I-Like-To-Bike 05-16-13 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15631991)
Now playing devils advocate for a moment... peds walking side by side by side and blocking a well marked bikeway could show courtesy and leave way for cyclists to get by.

Yes, pedestrians could and should show courtesy and leave way for cyclists to get by; but often don't. That is a fact of life on the MUP, cyclists just have to deal with it and not whine and cry about how they could be going faster if only...

Cyclists could and should show courtesy when cycling in traffic; but sometimes are obnoxiously obtuse. That is a fact of life on the street, motorists just have to deal with it and not whine and cry about how they could be going faster if only...

I-Like-To-Bike 05-16-13 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15629679)
I'm not going vigilante. All I'm saying is that accidents have happened on MUPs where spedestrians were hit by cyclists. A few years ago this happened on the Springwater MUP. The cyclist crashed into a pedestrian, enough to cause some bodily damage. Witnesses said the pedestrian was zigzagging and not paying attention. Nothing happened to the cyclists legally.

That is a lot different circumstance than that suggested by another poster who in essence advocates open season on pedestrians on an MUP if they don't get out of cyclists' way and/or happen to be using a cell phone or are listening to audio devices.

alhedges 05-16-13 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeyBike (Post 15629608)
I often walk on MUPs with my wife. We walk on the far LEFT edge facing wheeled traffic. Cyclists coming up from behind don't have to do anything but go past right where they are. When a cyclist approaches from up ahead we LOOK over our shoulders and move right if all is clear. If more cyclists are also behind us we just step off the path momentarily and watch all the grateful cyclists go past easily and safely, then resume our walk.

It is all about attentiveness and a desire to be courteous to fast moving traffic same as if we were walking on a state highway populated with motor vehicles.

Most MUP users are oblivious, unaware, and entitled. Those users need to get buzzed IMO. At least they will be alert for a few moments thereafter and perhaps avoid causing an accident.

You are walking in the wrong direction on the MUP. If you can't figure out how to use it, you should stay off.

Pedestrians have the right of way. You, as a cyclist, are required to yield to them under *all circumstances*. Even if you don't like how they are walking, or that they are listening to headphones.

The world was not set up for your convenience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15629633)
No. It is a Multi Use Path. Which means there will be cyclists (faster traffic) mixing amongst pedestrians. Reasonable pedestrians stay to the right unless they wanted to get speared at 20 mph.

Again, more entitled BS from a cyclist who believes that *he* has all of the rights of the road, and pedestrians may only participate if they defer to cyclists. That's not how MUPs work. If you are biking on the MUP, you are required to yield to pedestrians. They have right of way, *even if* they are on the left.

If you can't figure out how to use a MUP, please stay off of them. The last thing we need is for a bunch of overentitled jerks to get bikes banned from the MUP.

agent pombero 05-16-13 10:12 AM

Is there a chance over entitled jerk pedestrians might be banned from the MUP?

Commodus 05-16-13 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15632205)
Is there a chance over entitled jerk pedestrians might be banned from the MUP?

They're not over-entitled. They're free citizens using public space at their own discretion. This is something like what 'freedom' means. Why is it so unreasonable to slow down, say 'excuse me' or something, and go round? Isn't this pretty close to what we expect cars to do when we're riding on the road? What is it about society that convinces everyone they must be allowed to travel at their chosen speed at all times?

When I rode motorcycles, I was constantly impeded by all other traffic on the road. I had, at that time, the fastest motorcycle ever produced by anyone. At no time did I expect other road users to accommodate my desire to travel at a consistent speed of 250+ km/h. Nor do I expect that at 90 km/h in my car, nor at 35 km/h on my bicycle. We all require accommodation at times from others, and we all must provide the like at other times. Or you can whine and moan about it on bikeforums, I guess.

Camilo 05-16-13 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15629633)
No. It is a Multi Use Path. Which means there will be cyclists (faster traffic) mixing amongst pedestrians. Reasonable pedestrians stay to the right unless they wanted to get speared at 20 mph.

I am not saying that pedestrians don't need to consider other users, but I am saying that cyclists need to understand that the annoying behavior they see by pedestrians and other users is normal and should be expected. Any cyclist who is going 20mph in the vicinity of any other user is in the wrong, period. Go 20 on a path dedicated to bikes only? Could be perfectly safe. Do 20 on a path that has nobody else on it and good sight lines? Could be perfectly safe. Go 20 when there's any other user being overtaken? Almost always wrong.

agent pombero 05-16-13 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodus (Post 15632257)
They're not over-entitled. They're free citizens using public space at their own discretion. This is something like what 'freedom' means. Why is it so unreasonable to slow down, say 'excuse me' or something, and go round? Isn't this pretty close to what we expect cars to do when we're riding on the road? What is it about society that convinces everyone they must be allowed to travel at their chosen speed at all times?

I, too, am a free citizen using public space at my own discretion...
I'm not asking to be allowed to travel at my chosen speed at all times.
I'm asking for over entitled pedestrian jerks to actually move over when I say "Excuse me" or ding my bell.
I'm asking for over entitled pedestrian jerks to not run/walk on a MUP 5 abreast so that nobody can pass them.
I'm asking for over entitled pedestrian jerks to not use their iPhones while crossing in the middle of the street, between parked cars, without looking.
Etc.

GP 05-16-13 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodus (Post 15632257)
They're not over-entitled. They're free citizens using public space at their own discretion.

+1.

longbeachgary 05-16-13 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camilo (Post 15628806)
Frankly, I wouldn't ride up to anyone on a "bike path" that fast, regardless of calling out or whatever. You should overtake anyone -cyclist or pedestrian - at a safe speed that accounts for any boneheaded move they make. That means very slowly, hands on brakes, ASSUMING they'll be making some sort of unexpected move - not surprised by it.

I'm not saying the turning guy was not an idiot- he was. The overtaking rider, from what I see in the video was careless and more experience riding would teach him that he needs to be more cautious. This sort of thing happens all the time.

Like someone said above (to paraphrase) - you can "wish" all you want that pedestrians on MUPs would walk in a straight line, not listen to head phones, keep their kids and dogs on very short leashes, but SURPRISE!! they simply don't

Get over it. Ride according to what is really happening, not what you wish would happen. Unless it's a restricted bicycle only path, it's a MULTI USE path, and those other users have every right to use it, and the behaviors that are so annoying to some of you are simply NORMAL ways that people enjoy a walk.

Hey why not grab your video camera and show us less experienced cyclists how it's done? I know how easy it is for you to give advice to others from the comfort of your computer chair. If you don't have a camera or cant' afford one, I'll gladly send you one and you can even keep it. Man up and show us how it's done.

kalliergo 05-16-13 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alhedges (Post 15628771)
Another A&S post that shows that a lot of bikers are bullies just like the cars they are always complaining about. If a car passes too closely, it's whine, whine, whine...but because pedestrians are slower and weaker, they have to put up with whatever the more powerful cyclists want.

It's disgusting. And it's yet another reason why the populace at large doesn't like cyclists much.

Exactly right. If you want to share the road with users who behave like vehicles, use the road. If you want to ride on paths with pedestrians, slow down, yield, stop yelling at them, stop bullying.

kalliergo 05-16-13 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbeachgary (Post 15632991)
Hey why not grab your video camera and show us less experienced cyclists how it's done?

It's done like this: Slow down and yield to peds and other slower users. Stop expecting/demanding that people walking behave like operators of vehicles; they don't and they won't.

Even an inexperienced cyclist shouldn't need video to learn this lesson. If you are having trouble, I have a nearby MUP that will teach you: The baby joggers will call Officer Mike, whose Harley is a lot faster than your bike. Officer Mike will write your citation, you will pay the fine, and then you can decide whether you want another, at the special repeat-offender price.

kalliergo 05-16-13 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15632305)
I, too, am a free citizen using public space at my own discretion...
I'm not asking to be allowed to travel at my chosen speed at all times.
I'm asking for over entitled pedestrian jerks to actually move over when I say "Excuse me" or ding my bell.
I'm asking for over entitled pedestrian jerks to not run/walk on a MUP 5 abreast so that nobody can pass them.
I'm asking for over entitled pedestrian jerks to not use their iPhones while crossing in the middle of the street, between parked cars, without looking.
Etc.

You can't always get what you want, and you're not going to get what you're asking for here.

Keith99 05-16-13 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alhedges (Post 15632162)
You are walking in the wrong direction on the MUP. If you can't figure out how to use it, you should stay off.

Pedestrians have the right of way. You, as a cyclist, are required to yield to them under *all circumstances*. Even if you don't like how they are walking, or that they are listening to headphones.

The world was not set up for your convenience.


Again, more entitled BS from a cyclist who believes that *he* has all of the rights of the road, and pedestrians may only participate if they defer to cyclists. That's not how MUPs work. If you are biking on the MUP, you are required to yield to pedestrians. They have right of way, *even if* they are on the left.

If you can't figure out how to use a MUP, please stay off of them. The last thing we need is for a bunch of overentitled jerks to get bikes banned from the MUP.

Most actual MUPs are primarily for bikes. If it comes to banning it will be pedestrians that get banned.

Near me many paths that pedestrians think are MUPs are in fact bike paths, not MUPs.

longbeachgary 05-16-13 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15633177)
It's done like this: Slow down and yield to peds and other slower users. Stop expecting/demanding that people walking behave like operators of vehicles; they don't and they won't.

Even an inexperienced cyclist shouldn't need video to learn this lesson. If you are having trouble, I have a nearby MUP that will teach you: The baby joggers will call Officer Mike, whose Harley is a lot faster than your bike. Officer Mike will write your citation, you will pay the fine, and then you can decide whether you want another, at the special repeat-offender price.

What are you talking about? You jumped into something that you know nothing about. Try to mind your own business.

kalliergo 05-16-13 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbeachgary (Post 15633215)
What are you talking about? You jumped into something that you know nothing about. Try to mind your own business.

I was talking to you, among others, Gary. And I was talking about the subject under discussion. If you think I know "nothing about" it, you have a great deal to learn about me.

And I'll damned well jump into threads whenever and wherever I decide.

Further: You need to learn manners. Your mother should have taught you long ago, but she obviously failed.

kalliergo 05-16-13 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith99 (Post 15633190)
Most actual MUPs are primarily for bikes. If it comes to banning it will be pedestrians that get banned.

Near me many paths that pedestrians think are MUPs are in fact bike paths, not MUPs.

Those assertions would be wildly wrong WRT the vast majority of MUPs in the US. Where do you live?

longbeachgary 05-16-13 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15633288)
I was talking to you, among others, Gary. And I was talking about the subject under discussion. If you think I know "nothing about" it, you have a great deal to learn about me.

And I'll damned well jump into threads whenever and wherever I decide.

Further: You need to learn manners. Your mother should have taught you long ago, but she obviously failed.

Thank you for the laugh!!! I already know everything I ever want to know about you. You may go back to your knitting now.

I-Like-To-Bike 05-16-13 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith99 (Post 15633190)
Most actual MUPs are primarily for bikes. If it comes to banning it will be pedestrians that get banned.

Near me many paths that pedestrians think are MUPs are in fact bike paths, not MUPs.

Who sez MUPs are primarily for bikes? You? Anyone else?

Where in the US is there a chance in heck that pedestrians are likely to banned from using an MUP because cyclists claim it as their own playground?

kalliergo 05-16-13 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbeachgary (Post 15633406)
Thank you for the laugh!!! I already know everything I ever want to know about you. You may go back to your knitting now.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

GP 05-16-13 03:49 PM

The MUP near my house is primarily for bikes. It has "bike trail" in its name. I doubt pedestrians or bikes would ever be banned. We don't seem to have any problems on it. It's raised and does not have any trees so lines of sight are excellent.

genec 05-16-13 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15633434)
Who sez MUPs are primarily for bikes? You? Anyone else?

Where in the US is there a chance in heck that pedestrians are likely to banned from using an MUP because cyclists claim it as their own playground?

Depends on the MUP, location and design. One (yes, only one) near me has a parallel walking track... yet oddly peds still walk on the bike path itself. The sad fact is peds will go anywhere their legs will take them... just like cyclists will ride on sidewalks. No point in banning them, best for all to do a reality check and just get along.

kalliergo 05-16-13 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15633652)
Depends on the MUP, location and design. One (yes, only one) near me has a parallel walking track... yet oddly peds still walk on the bike path itself. The sad fact is peds will go anywhere their legs will take them... just like cyclists will ride on sidewalks. No point in banning them, best for all to do a reality check and just get along.

In California, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Class I bikeways (bike paths) are intended for bikes and peds.

Comparatively few adjacent pedestrian facilities exist.

Quote:

1003.1 Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths)

Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by vehicles minimized.

Class I bikeways, unless adjacent to an adequate pedestrian facility, (see Index 1001.3(n)) are for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, therefore any facility serving pedestrians must meet accessibility requirements, see DIB 82. However, experience has shown that if regular pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians may be beneficial to minimize conflicts.

Edit: The referenced accessibility guidelines are those established pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

genec 05-16-13 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15633762)
In California, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Class I bikeways (bike paths) are intended for bikes and peds.

Comparatively few adjacent pedestrian facilities exist.



Edit: The referenced accessibility guidelines are those established pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This one has a well signed "adjacent pedestrian facility," with a split rail fence between the two. Peds don't care.

longbeachgary 05-16-13 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnabb100 (Post 15626639)
It certainly did not sound like you called out very loudly, it sounded almost like a normal speaking voice. That's not loud enough, you gotta really use those pipes.

You complained at him louder than you called.


I'm not saying you're at fault, i'm just saying you could have done more to prevent it.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Not sure we were watching the same video but I did prevent it. I could tell that he was acting funny when he stopped pedaling but there was no natural place for him to turn - if you notice he turned onto a gravel walkway that parallels the path. The camera that I used was a GoPro camera that fits into a plastic case. That's why it doesn't sound very loud but you have to know that I don't ride up behind people and scream at them. I appreciate your comments but there is just no way to be able to always avoid collissions except to do what a lot of the members here do and that's stay at their computer and not ride.

I-Like-To-Bike 05-16-13 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15633652)
Depends on the MUP, location and design. One (yes, only one) near me has a parallel walking track... yet oddly peds still walk on the bike path itself. The sad fact is peds will go anywhere their legs will take them... just like cyclists will ride on sidewalks. No point in banning them, best for all to do a reality check and just get along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15633762)
In California, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Class I bikeways (bike paths) are intended for bikes and peds.

Comparatively few adjacent pedestrian facilities exist.

Thanks for the clarifications. Your explanations are certainly a lot different than this exaggerated claim:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith99 (Post 15633190)
Most actual MUPs are primarily for bikes. If it comes to banning it will be pedestrians that get banned.

Near me many paths that pedestrians think are MUPs are in fact bike paths, not MUPs.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 PM.