Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-14, 01:23 PM   #51
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,342
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyBike View Post
You gotta take SOME responsibility for your own safety out there.
Joey, I was.....by going slow, might as well of got off my bike and walked according to your logic.
dynodonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 01:24 PM   #52
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,457
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyBike View Post
Do you think the outcome would have been any different if their backs were turned to you? At least there was a chance they could react if they were facing you. My wife and I would have simply stepped off the path and let you go by.

If everyone at least TRIES to be courteous there would be very few problems in MUPs. Trouble is, almost everyone on those things are entitled j@ck@$$3$ with their heads in the clouds or unwilling to slow down for a moment.
I can't say about him, but there is one situation where walkers on the wrong side is a bother. I usually don't care one way or the other, but when there's a lot of traffic coming the other way and the peds are walking in my lane we both have to come to a complete stop and wait. It's awkward especially with the more unbalanced ones that glare at you for being in their way. If they were walking the other way, at least we'd all be going a walking pace.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 03:17 PM   #53
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,975
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyBike View Post
My wife and I walk on several MUPs, some of them fairly narrow as well. How we handle it, we walk FACING "traffic" just as if we were walking on a state highway with no sidewalks. This way, faster trail users overtaking us don't have to do anything, say anything, or move anywhere. They just keep doing what they are doing. Then should we SEE other trail users closing in on us from the front side we simply look over our shoulder to see if anyone is coming up from behind us. If the coast is clear, we step to the right side of the trail and let the cyclists approaching from up front keep their line and lane. As soon as they pass we move back to the left side facing traffic. If there are cyclists coming up in front and behind us we just step off the trail momentarily and let everyone get past, then resume our peaceful walk. We are not counting on hearing anything. We could have music blowing our eardrums out. We LOOK OUT for other trail users, which is ridiculously easy to do on foot. An MUP is the same as any other roadway shared by foot traffic and wheeled traffic as far as I am concerned.

And THIS^^ is how I expect all pedestrians to act on MUPs. Wish in one hand, spit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Some here might find this video of mine fun regarding how most people in my town use MUPs.

And yet, in spite of how "MADDENING" it may be... it seems the cyclist (Joey) managed to do a lap without hitting one meat pylon. Gee, how tough can it be?
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 06:05 PM   #54
JoeyBike
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Bikes: Surly LHT, and 3 others
Posts: 5,625
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
And yet, in spite of how "MADDENING" it may be... it seems the cyclist (Joey) managed to do a lap without hitting one meat pylon. Gee, how tough can it be?
Well, I filmed the video during a weekday when not too many people were using that path. During weekends and holidays the path is packed with people acting the same way, which makes it impossible to ride a bike on it, which is....MADDENING. It is maddening because if people just followed the instructions it would be possible (and lovely) to actually ride a bike on that trail. Instead, I just keep using the street - same as it ever was.

I made the video to post on the City Park facebook page. They take it down pretty quick so I have to post the link fairly often. I am hoping they get the hint and just remove all of the worthless trail markings. Funny thing, there is an identical path about six miles away that trail users follow the markings religiously and "correct" anyone going against the grain - which makes that trail always bike-able no matter how packed with walkers and joggers it gets. It is set up exactly the same way as far as markings go. I guess that is in a smarter demographic neighborhood.

Last edited by JoeyBike; 05-31-14 at 06:09 PM.
JoeyBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 06:15 PM   #55
JoeyBike
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Bikes: Surly LHT, and 3 others
Posts: 5,625
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
...we both have to come to a complete stop and wait...
I have never had this experience while walking on any path in my area. I just step aside (onto the grass) and let everyone go by (at worst, 5 seconds) then resume my walk on the path. It makes more sense to me, as a walker and a cyclist, that the person who is almost stopped anyway (the walker) should give ground to vehicles on the MUP. So when I am walking, this is how I handle it. I step out of the way. Maybe one in every hundred other walkers do the same when I am cycling that MUP.

BTW...the MUPs I am using are not in S. California. They just never get THAT packed with people. If I were walking on the path in Venice, CA on a nice Saturday I guess I would just ignore all of the other trail users too, or I would just be standing in the sand watching a stream of humanity pass me by for several hours without a gap.
JoeyBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 09:49 PM   #56
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaleighSport View Post
I find it very interesting you've seized on that section of my thoughts and completely disregard the parallels with road use for cycling.. even though that's exactly the part of my thought you chose to address or rather.. promote an agenda via? And FWIW, most mup's/park trails etc around here, do require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back and pass safely.. it also outlines basic rules for pedestrians as well that they disregard. I refer you back to my question of where do we fit in.. if everyone else demands entitlements to the roads and MUP's, where do we ride?
I don't know where your location of "STS" is, but I've never seen any MUP'S or park trails that require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back, or forbid pedestrians from wearing headphones. Does STS also require motorists to alert every cyclist from a ways back?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 09:53 PM   #57
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I honestly don't see how you reached that (incorrect) conclusion.

The one and only reason I "ding" at pedestrians is a courtesy so that they don't inadvertently jump into my path. What they actually do is up to them, and I deal with it as necessary.

Obnoxious - some probably think so but many people thank me as I pass so I think that opinion is of the fringe.
I reached my conclusion about the speed demon OP from reading the OP's post and at least one other poster who expect a response from every pedestrian whom they notify of their approach.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 10:15 PM   #58
zonatandem
Senior Member
 
zonatandem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: Custom Zona c/f tandem + Scott Plasma single
Posts: 10,908
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Riding leisurely at 20 mph on a MUP???
Seriously?
Have you NO regard for pedestrians?! At that speed you do not belong on a MUP but on the road where I ride . . .
zonatandem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 01:41 AM   #59
keyven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Posts: 1,117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Why do some cyclists believe that every pedestrian (on a recreational path/trail where walking is permitted) is required to "react" in some way to obnoxious or loudmouth cyclists? What reaction do these bell ringing shouting cyclists expect? A bow or curtsey, perhaps? Why shouldn't pedestrians on a recreational path talk to each other or on a cell phone, or listen to their music?

Maybe speed happy cyclists should find another route, or perish the thought, slow down to a pace consistent with cycling amongst the many legitimate users of a MUP.
I can see how you got the wrong idea by my rant, but I assure you I am NOT an aggressive rider (on the walkways) in any sense. My belief is that pedestrians, regardless of how they react, are the rightful traffic on the sidewalks, and I'm just a visitor.

I say "thank you" or "sorry" to every person who shifts even slightly to accommodate me. I will never ring my bell at the elderly or families out for a stroll, instead opting to slow to a crawl and just practice my balancing act, or drop to the road if it's sufficiently clear.

However, that doesn't mean it's not annoying to get zero reaction from seemingly healthy, non-distracted pedestrians on a too-frequent basis. Even if I'm in the 'wrong' - it's STILL frustrating.
keyven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 06:50 AM   #60
RaleighSport 
Hogosha Sekai
 
RaleighSport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: STS
Bikes: Leader 725, Centurion Turbo, Scwhinn Tempo, Schwinn Premis, GT Tequesta, Bridgestone CB-2,72' Centurion Lemans
Posts: 6,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
I don't know where your location of "STS" is, but I've never seen any MUP'S or park trails that require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back, or forbid pedestrians from wearing headphones. Does STS also require motorists to alert every cyclist from a ways back?
I don't recall ever saying any path literally said for pedestrians to not use headphones. So you're telling me, your trails have no yield priority signs or traffic direction markings? Or are you just being your usual self trying to make a point at the cost of the main conversation?

One other thing: Notice the OP came in full of piss and vinegar, and when his theory was deflated he took off, not to be seen since... I don't think the basis of this thread carries very much weight in this forum, especially not since you keep referencing his one described rider.. but that's what it is, an incident or two that stuck out to the OP, it's like saying I nearly got buzzed by a car at a crosswalk while walking! CARS NOW DO WHAT I SAY!
__________________
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Last edited by RaleighSport; 06-01-14 at 06:54 AM.
RaleighSport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 10:59 AM   #61
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Avoiding pedestrians? Don't cycle where there are pedestrians.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 11:08 AM   #62
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,457
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
I don't know where your location of "STS" is, but I've never seen any MUP'S or park trails that require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back, or forbid pedestrians from wearing headphones. Does STS also require motorists to alert every cyclist from a ways back?

It's posted on every entrance on the one I frequent. Along with a few other rules, such as pedestrians keeping to the right and move off the path when you stop.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 12:08 PM   #63
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
It's posted on every entrance on the one I frequent. Along with a few other rules, such as pedestrians keeping to the right and move off the path when you stop.
I am most familiar with the paths in Philadelphia since I have ridden on them for more than 40 years. Never seen these "rules." Maybe some Philadelphia area BF photobug or BF pseudo lawyer can straighten me out.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 12:25 PM   #64
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,457
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
I am most familiar with the paths in Philadelphia since I have ridden on them for more than 40 years. Never seen these "rules." Maybe some Philadelphia area BF photobug or BF pseudo lawyer can straighten me out.
You didn't specify Philadelphia earlier, but as for here Guide to the Big Creek Greenway to make your experience more enjoyable while Walking, Running, or Biking

consider yourself straightened!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_5889.JPG (58.0 KB, 17 views)
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 12:35 PM   #65
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
You didn't specify Philadelphia earlier, but as for here Guide to the Big Creek Greenway to make your experience more enjoyable while Walking, Running, or Biking

consider yourself straightened!
Thanks, I will keep these "rules" in mind next time I ride on the Big Creek Greenway.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 01:46 PM   #66
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,457
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Thanks, I will keep these "rules" in mind next time I ride on the Big Creek Greenway.
Or the next time you opine about the methods and expectations of those who do now, I hope.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 03:21 PM   #67
HawkOwl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 2,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
There have been some posts that have skirted around the key factors. Maybe they should be clearly stated: >On a MUP it is the cyclist's responsibility to avoid the pedestrian. Pedestrians have the right of way. > It is the overtaking (passing) vehicle that has the burden of maintaining safety. > The pedestrian has no responsibility to "get out of the way". The pedestrian may, but is not obligated to give way unless there are specfic rules to the contrary posted.

In application these are no different than motoring or boating rules.


So, if you are one of those people who just can't discipline yourself to ride safely on Multiple Use Paths don't ride there.
HawkOwl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 05:32 PM   #68
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,963
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
There is one significant difference in a MUP and Road. On a road you do not generally see two bicycle riders traveling the same direction with one in the middle of each lane, on a MUP it is not uncommon to see two walkers traveling the same direction with one in each 'lane'. A vehicle approaching a road cyclist from behind has the option of using the oncoming lane to pass, a bicycle rider approaching two walkers side-by-side does not have that option and must signal the walker in the 'oncoming lane' to move over.
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 06:13 PM   #69
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me common sense and common courtesy dictate that all users of a public facility are obligated to minimize their negative impact on others as much as reasonably possible.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 06:19 PM   #70
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,963
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me common sense and common courtesy dictate that all users of a public facility are obligated to minimize their negative impact on others as much as reasonably possible.
Nah, that seems too simple.
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 06:22 PM   #71
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,963
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkOwl View Post
> The pedestrian has no responsibility to "get out of the way".
I don't think this is correct. If two or three or whatever pedestrians are walking side by side and blocking the entire width of the path then I think you'd be hard pressed to find any sane person who doesn't believe that they should single up to let others pass.
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 06:22 PM   #72
RaleighSport 
Hogosha Sekai
 
RaleighSport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: STS
Bikes: Leader 725, Centurion Turbo, Scwhinn Tempo, Schwinn Premis, GT Tequesta, Bridgestone CB-2,72' Centurion Lemans
Posts: 6,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me common sense and common courtesy dictate that all users of a public facility are obligated to minimize their negative impact on others as much as reasonably possible.
You're not crazy at all, but if that happened we wouldn't have threads like this to discuss "deep thoughts".
__________________
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
RaleighSport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 09:55 PM   #73
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,409
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkOwl View Post
There have been some posts that have skirted around the key factors. Maybe they should be clearly stated: >On a MUP it is the cyclist's responsibility to avoid the pedestrian. Pedestrians have the right of way. > It is the overtaking (passing) vehicle that has the burden of maintaining safety. > The pedestrian has no responsibility to "get out of the way". The pedestrian may, but is not obligated to give way unless there are specfic rules to the contrary posted.

In application these are no different than motoring or boating rules.


So, if you are one of those people who just can't discipline yourself to ride safely on Multiple Use Paths don't ride there.
In the state of Oregon the laws are different than your version. Here, bike paths are designated as roads under state law. As if that's not enough, on roads without sidewalks, pedestrians have no right of way at all, so they are at fault in any collision. Worse yet, we have no law that mandates people avoid collisions that are avoidable. (We used to have one, but it was repealed.)

Fortunately, almost all cyclists routinely give way to critical-mass style walkers rather than ruin everyone's day and almost all pedestrians make an effort to leave some of the bike path available to pass them. Just because the law allows folks to be asshats, it appears that most folks choose to not be such.

However, it is a shame that we are allowing our bike paths to complete the progression from bike path to MUP to off-road sidewalk, if not legally then by convention. Maybe we can make up for this by confining cars to the freeways.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 11:12 PM   #74
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
However, it is a shame that we are allowing our bike paths to complete the progression from bike path to MUP to off-road sidewalk, if not legally then by convention.
Perhaps you can expound on the concept and definition of "our bike paths" and what made this real estate originally an exclusive province of and for bike users; when and where did this occur? Were bicycle users the only source of the labor, money and resources required to build "our bike paths" on public land?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 11:40 PM   #75
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,409
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Perhaps you can expound on the concept and definition of "our bike paths" and what made this real estate originally an exclusive province of and for bike users; when and where did this occur? Were bicycle users the only source of the labor, money and resources required to build "our bike paths" on public land?
All of the bike paths that I have used extensively, as opposed to those that I have ridden on while passing through places, were originally funded for the express purpose of facilitating cycling, particularly transportational cycling. These things started being built in the '70s. You do remember the '70s, don't you? That was when we had a couple of oil-price spikes and were looking for a way to use less oil. Oddly, we have OPEC and the late Ayatollah Khomeni to thank for these things.

That "our" in reference to bike paths refers to all of us, cyclists and noncyclists alike. Just like "our" forests belong to all of us whether we use them or not, so to does our transportation infrastructure. If we were to have an honest discussion regarding the use of our bike paths and concluded as a society that we want them to be off-street sidewalks on which pedestrians have absolute right-of-way, that would disappoint me but I would happily live by it. I am not too happy about what I see as a stealth movement by motorists to take over the bike paths by driving to them to stroll three abreast and prevent people from riding.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56 AM.