I live next to a really popular rail-trail here and was out walking my dog when I heard some arguing up ahead. My older neighbor was out walking on the path and was into an argument with a roadie that was cruising down the trail at 20mph. My neighbor had yelled at the guy to slow down and an argument ensued.
I stepped in to break up the argument (before it went to fisticuffs) and try and let cooler heads prevail. I tried to explain to my neighbor that the bike has every right to be there and I tried to explain to the cyclist from out of town that this is a family trail full of kids and moms on bikes, rollerbladers, dog walkers, etc. and if he wants to ride that fast he should be on the road. FYI, there are no shortage of great cycling routes right in the area we were.
Anyways, all the guy would say is that he had every right to be there and he could ride as fast as he wanted. I told him he gave a bad name to cyclists everywhere with his attitude and that I wouldn't be surprised if he got his ass kicked by locals.
People like this give us a bad name. Try to set them straight if you run into one.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
While I agree the cyclists' attitude may have been questionable, his point is valid: he has every right to use a BIKE path and to travel at unchecked speeds. There's nothing to suggest he can't. Unfortunately, it is the locals that live near the trail that need to be aware and careful of cyclists. After all, it is a bike path, as you point out. It is not a dog-walking park or a playground and while it may be used by locals as such, it doesn't mean that is what the park is for. Treat it like any road: look both ways and stay away from the path while walking the dog. Your neighbours wouldn't wander aimlessly down the road, nor should they on the path. It is a bike trail. That means bikes will be using it and may be traveling at high rates of speed. Walking along it or stopping on it is almost as foolish as behaving that way on the local streets you suggest he ride on. Asking a cyclist to observe a non-existent speed-limit (and 20 mph isn't that fast anyway) or to go on roads where reaching such speeds may be hazardous is, quite frankly, ridiculous. He's on a BIKE path. That's what they're for. Why not suggest your neighbour walk his dog out on the road? I mean, they're public spaces too and he has every right to them as well. I guess the lesson learned is that there are risks on a bike trail too and that they shouldn't be taken for granted just because they don't get the volume of traffic a road does.
Denny Koll
I suspect the older neighbor was probably being unreasonable. If he stayed to the side of the path there probably wouldn't have been a problem. I have been to TC and there is a bike path that isn't a rail trail that goes through the main part of the city...is this the path? Seems to me it is very narrow and at times congested.
maddyfish
Is it a BIKE path, is it a MUP, or is it a park sidewalk? What is the thing called?
michiganboy
It is a recreational trail--not a bike path. It is used by dog walkers (there are leash rules), rollerbladers, runners, bikers, walkers, strollers, etc. I donate money each year to support it so I understand its purpose.
20 MPH is fast when there are families riding along the trail together . The serious bikers around here stay off of this trail or only ride it early in the morning. We understand that weaving through people on a narrow trail at higher speeds can create a dangerous situation.
This guy was from out of town (as most people are this time of year) and I was just trying to help him understand the purpose of the trail.
michiganboy
Is it a BIKE path, is it a MUP, or is it a park sidewalk? What is the thing called?
Here is a link to the trail. It is a recreational trail
http://www.traversetrails.org/tart-trail.shtml
michiganboy
I suspect the older neighbor was probably being unreasonable. If he stayed to the side of the path there probably wouldn't have been a problem. I have been to TC and there is a bike path that isn't a rail trail that goes through the main part of the city...is this the path? Seems to me it is very narrow and at times congested.
That is the one. We were a few miles north of downtown though. It does get congested in the summer
SSP
While I agree the cyclists' attitude may have been questionable, his point is valid: he has every right to use a BIKE path and to travel at unchecked speeds. There's nothing to suggest he can't.
Many MUP's have speed limits...my local one has a speed limit of 10 mph for bikes. It's routinely ignored (especially on the more remote stretches where peds are few), but in the congested areas 10 mph is a reasonable limit for bikes. After all, when there are kids and dogs present, excessive speed is dangerous for both the peds and the cyclists.
The cyclist in this confrontation was 100% at fault, and was being a JAB.
SonataInFSharp
Think of the freeway during rush hour. Sure, the speed limit is 55 (or 60, or 65, etc), but the speed limit isn't always reasonable.
Sure the bike had a right to be there, but at that speed? Probably not.
On the other hand, what was the neighbor trying to accomplish by yelling at the guy?
San Rensho
While I agree the cyclists' attitude may have been questionable, his point is valid: he has every right to use a BIKE path and to travel at unchecked speeds. There's nothing to suggest he can't. Unfortunately, it is the locals that live near the trail that need to be aware and careful of cyclists. After all, it is a bike path, as you point out. It is not a dog-walking park or a playground and while it may be used by locals as such, it doesn't mean that is what the park is for. Treat it like any road: look both ways and stay away from the path while walking the dog. Your neighbours wouldn't wander aimlessly down the road, nor should they on the path. It is a bike trail. That means bikes will be using it and may be traveling at high rates of speed. Walking along it or stopping on it is almost as foolish as behaving that way on the local streets you suggest he ride on. Asking a cyclist to observe a non-existent speed-limit (and 20 mph isn't that fast anyway) or to go on roads where reaching such speeds may be hazardous is, quite frankly, ridiculous. He's on a BIKE path. That's what they're for. Why not suggest your neighbour walk his dog out on the road? I mean, they're public spaces too and he has every right to them as well. I guess the lesson learned is that there are risks on a bike trail too and that they shouldn't be taken for granted just because they don't get the volume of traffic a road does.
He doesn't have the right to go at an unchecked speed. The rules of the road are that you have to go at a SAFE speed, and if the path is full of peds, who have the right to be there, he has to slow down to a safe speed.
Thats like saying that if there is congestion on a road with a speed limit of 70 mph and the traffic is moving at 50, you have every right to blast around, through, everything at 70 mph.
michiganboy
Many MUP's have speed limits...my local one has a speed limit of 10 mph for bikes. It's routinely ignored (especially on the more remote stretches where peds are few), but in the congested areas 10 mph is a reasonable limit for bikes. After all, when there are kids and dogs present, excessive speed is dangerous for both the peds and the cyclists.
The cyclist in this confrontation was 100% at fault, and was being a JAB.
The speed limit thing is a good idea. I think I will see if we can get a rule posted on the trail to keep your speed at 10 mph if others are present.
dipy911
Adding "If others are present" makes the speed limit meaningless legally. I didn't see anyone when I went around that blind corner. It's either a speed limit or not. 15MPH is more reasonable. I don't go slower that 10 up hills.
All they have to do is any case is remove their computer. I don't know what speed I'm doing. Just kidding, I stick to the road. Trails filled with oblivians are dangerous.
dipy911
EnigManiac
He doesn't have the right to go at an unchecked speed. The rules of the road are that you have to go at a SAFE speed, and if the path is full of peds, who have the right to be there, he has to slow down to a safe speed.
Thats like saying that if there is congestion on a road with a speed limit of 70 mph and the traffic is moving at 50, you have every right to blast around, through, everything at 70 mph.
The OP and the thread title identified the route as a Bike Path. Now, it has been revealed as a MUP. That's quite different. He misrepresented the purpose of the path. If it were a bike path, as he originally identified it, without a speed limit, and 20mph is a safe speed for the terrain, etc., then yes the cyclist is allowed to travel at whatever speed he can manage safely. It would be the responsibility of non-cyclists to give right-of-way to the cyclist. On a MUP, I would agree that since it is shared by multiple users, any cyclist should exercise caution and restraint. My reply, however, was based on the claim that the trail was a Bike path.
Bikes don't generally have speedometers, after all, so how is any cyclist supposed to guage their speed?
Your analogy makes no sense, incidentally. The OP did not say the path was congested at the time, merely that it is used by moms with strollers and dog-walkers, etc., so you are making the assumption that it was congested. And IF the path was a designated bike path, as he described it originally, dog-walkers and strollers shouldn't be on the path.
michiganboy
I guess I shouldn't have called it a bike path. I have never been on a path that is just for bikes; they have all been shared.
Denny Koll
If paths reserved exclusively for bikes exist...there aren't any that I have ever seen. For example I visted the "bike path" in Grand Haven, MI this weekend and the only folks using it were walkers. It could be used for cycling if the walkers wouldn't take up the whole path. But since the path is narrow and walkers assume ownership bikes use the road. Where are these paths just for bikes EnigManiac?
Blue Order
Anyone suppose that the cyclist who claims a right to ride as fast as he wants on the MUP also complains about drivers who exceed the speed limit?
sggoodri
While some paths are designed well for the speeds cyclists often desire, many are not. Typical paved paths in my area of NC are designed as pedestrian facilities, with bicycle/ADA accommodations like ramps and bollard clearances incorporated as an afterthought. Path junctions are often at right angles; limited sight distances indicate no consideration of vehicle design speed.
Cary's official speed limit for MUPs/Greenways is 15 mph. Some sections are unsafe at this speed. Raleigh's path speed limit is 10 mph.
Jeronimo_
All they have to do is any case is remove their computer.
That's a funny assumption that anyone who might be exceeding certain speeds has a worthless piece of electronics attached to their bicycle.
dobber
Bikes don't generally have speedometers, after all, so how is any cyclist supposed to guage their speed?
I've yet to see a roadie, especially one intent on blazing down a MUP as if it were the Champe-Elysee during the finals sprint of the TdF, who wasn't outfitted with the latest in high tech data acquisition. These devices are typically capable of displaying current speed.
e man
people like this should find another form of recreation to enjoy, the cyclists i know are nice people and people like this cyclist give the rest of us a bad name which closes trails and forms little hate groups
pluc
The MUP here has a speed limit of 22 MPH, my average speed is around 20 MPH.
When passing peds and people like that, there's a great piece of hardware installed on almost every bike called a brake. I found out that it was possible to slow down to have a good passing speed and call me crazy but I use this awesome technique every day now!
Then I release the brake and accelerate to cruise speed. Incredible, eh? :)
Denny Koll
The MUP here has a speed limit of 22 MPH, my average speed is around 20 MPH.
When passing peds and people like that, there's a great piece of hardware installed on almost every bike called a brake. I found out that it was possible to slow down to have a good passing speed and call me crazy but I use this awesome technique every day now!
Then I release the brake and accelerate to cruise speed. Incredible, eh? :)
Do you have any video of that?
bragi
Many MUP's have speed limits...my local one has a speed limit of 10 mph for bikes. It's routinely ignored (especially on the more remote stretches where peds are few), but in the congested areas 10 mph is a reasonable limit for bikes. After all, when there are kids and dogs present, excessive speed is dangerous for both the peds and the cyclists.
The cyclist in this confrontation was 100% at fault, and was being a JAB.
+1. On a much-used MUP, it's just stupid for a bicyclist to insist on his perceived "right" to blast through the dogs and young children at whatever speeds he wants. Other users, when they encounter a nasty bicyclist on the MUP, will remember that encounter when they get back into their SUVs and see an innocent bicyclist on the road, minding his business and trying to be responsible.
SSP
All they have to do is any case is remove their computer.
I doubt that would be a useful defense...try telling the cop who pulls you over that your excuse is "my speedometer is broken". He'll likely reply, "Tell it to the judge". The judge, in turn, is likely to tell you that "Ignorance is no defense...Guilty as charged".
JoeyBike
Here is the answer as far as I am concerned:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=579261
Enjoy. Do not read this while eating or drinking!
Sportsman9
Here is the answer as far as I am concerned:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=579261
That is brilliant! I have to figure out how to get all that printed on a T-shirt.
CB HI
The OPs link for the path states "paved urban transportation corridor". In other words, the path is for transportation. The cyclist speed of 20 mph was reasonable for transportation. Since the path is for transportation, it is very likely that the path was 80% funded by federal ISTEA or TEA21 funds funneled through the local DOT. Thus, the out of town cyclist payed almost as much tax money for the path as the locals did.
Now, should we review who is being unreasonable in this situation?
I-Like-To-Bike
The OPs link for the path states "paved urban transportation corridor". In other words, the path is for transportation. The cyclist speed of 20 mph was reasonable for transportation. Since the path is for transportation, it is very likely that the path was 80% funded by federal ISTEA or TEA21 funds funneled through the local DOT. Thus, the out of town cyclist payed almost as much tax money for the path as the locals did.
Now, should we review who is being unreasonable in this situation?
What a bunch of malarky! Who pays which taxes for this or any other path is 100% irrelevant as to what is safe or sensible cycling practice.
Daily Commute
You don't give us enough facts to judge. 20 mph is too fast for a congested path, but just fine for a path with few people. It all depends.
Regardless of any posted speed limit, cyclists must go slow enough so that we can pass safely even if a ped takes two steps in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Cyclists must also go slow enough so that we can stop if there is a line of oblivious seven-year-olds blocking the whole path just around a blind curve. And cyclists should ALWAYS signal a pass with a bell.
That said, I have little patience for peds who don't feel comfortable being passed safely by 15-20 mph cyclists on an MUP. When I'm a ped, I don't feel comfortable sharing space with cyclists (even 5 mph cyclists), so I go for walks on sidewalks, not MUP's. Cyclists who don't like being passed by 60 mph cars should stay off country roads, and peds who don't like being passed by 15-20mph cyclists should stay off MUP's.
Also, our MUP has a very smart no-dogs-on-path "rule." (I put "rule" in quotation marks because no enforceable law backs up most of the posted "rules.") The "rule" says dogs should be on a leash of 6' or less and off to the side:
Greenway Trail Rules and Etiquette (http://recparks.columbus.gov/trails/trailrules.asp)
All Users
All City of Columbus Codes are enforced.(www.ci.columbus.oh.us )
Motorized vehicles are not permitted. Be courteous and predictable to other trail users at all times. Keep right, always pass on the left, giving audible warning to pedestrians, skaters and other bicyclists. Maintain single file when others are within 100'. Pets are not permitted on Greenway Trails. Keep dogs on leash (maximum length 6 feet) when walking near a trail and clean up after your pet. Dispose of litter in waste receptacles. Alcohol is prohibited on trails in park systems.
Bicyclists and Skaters
Yield to pedestrians. Give audible warning when passing pedestrians, skaters or bicyclists. Ride and skate at a safe speed. Slow down and form a single file in congested conditions, reduced visibility, and other hazardous conditions.
Pedestrians
Please stay to the right side of the trail except when otherwise designated. Watch for other trail users. Be especially alert when running. Listen for audible signals and allow faster trail users (runners and bicyclists) to pass safely.
michiganboy
The path was congested at the time he was on it. Kids, strollers, rollerblades, dogs, etc. It was a Sunday afternoon?
Since I figured he was a tourist, I tried to explain to him that his path really isn't the place for serious bikers -- maybe early in the morning but not on a Sunday afternoon in the height of tourist season.
This guy's attitude and reaction is giving a bad name to the nice, responsible cyclists around here.
Mr. Underbridge
The OPs link for the path states "paved urban transportation corridor". In other words, the path is for transportation. The cyclist speed of 20 mph was reasonable for transportation. Since the path is for transportation, it is very likely that the path was 80% funded by federal ISTEA or TEA21 funds funneled through the local DOT. Thus, the out of town cyclist payed almost as much tax money for the path as the locals did.
Now, should we review who is being unreasonable in this situation?
Do you want that logic applied to cyclists on roads? Because that sounds dangerously similar to the same tired rhetoric spewed by motorists that I have personally seen you attack on this very board.
It also seems very contemptuous of others on the road. My "golden rule" of cycling is to treat the peds like I want motorists to treat me. 20+mph *can* be appropriate for a MUP - depending on the level of slow traffic. If there's a lot of peds, then 20+ is too fast.
Trust me, I'm sympathetic to MUP speeding, because I do it. Daily. ;) But our MUP has little traffic during commute times, I announce loud and early, and I give peds a 5-foot wide pass zone.
Contrast that with the jackass I encountered this morning - he blasts past me when I'm stopped at a crosswalk, then slows down. I pass him, so he 'dials it up to 400W', screaming past pedestrians at 30mph not more than a foot from their shoulders. (I'm pretty sure that I offended his OCP-ness by passing his $2000 bike on a $400 Craigslist special that had a pair of dress shoes tied to the top tube, but I digress).
Acting with complete disregard for other people will either get us banned from the MUP or a speed limit applied, which I'd rather not see. If we demonstrate that we can respond appropriately to mixed traffic, we might avoid that. Slowing down when there are lots of peds present is part of an appropriate response.
CB HI
The OP implied that since the cyclist was a tourist, he had less right to the path than the locals. I simply pointed out how the cyclist taxes helped pay for the local path that the locals enjoy and in some cases appear to claim greater ownership.
As I and others have pointed out, cyclist property, sales and income taxes do pay for more than our share of the roads. Based on the wear and tear we cause, we end up supplementing road cost for the motorist. So doing away with paying for roads from property, income, sales and gas taxes; to be replaced by adjusting registration taxes based on propational weights (damage caused) is just fine with me. Then motorist might actually end up paying their fair share.
CB HI
...This guy's attitude and reaction is giving a bad name to the nice, responsible cyclists around here.
Hopefully you take the same position about your older neighbor giving the locals a bad name.
ryanspeer
While I agree the cyclists' attitude may have been questionable, his point is valid: he has every right to use a BIKE path and to travel at unchecked speeds. Many paths in the Seattle area have a 15mph limit. Whether or not it's ever enforced is another issue altogether, but technically there IS a speed limit. On occasion on busy days years ago, it wasn't uncommon for me to see uniformed police on bikes patrolling paths to crack down on excessively fast speeders. I haven't seen anything like that in years, but the point still stands.
It could very well apply in the OP's case as well.
Keith99
Do you want that logic applied to cyclists on roads? Because that sounds dangerously similar to the same tired rhetoric spewed by motorists that I have personally seen you attack on this very board.
Actually your statement is untrue. The 'logic' applied by some motorists is really just asserting a false premise. That premise being that all roads are paid for by gas taxes and auto registration fees. They would only have a point if this were in fact true, it is not.
Mr. Underbridge
The OP implied that since the cyclist was a tourist, he had less right to the path than the locals. I simply pointed out how the cyclist taxes helped pay for the local path that the locals enjoy and in some cases appear to claim greater ownership.
I didn't get that - seemed to me that he was giving the guy some benefit of the doubt because, as a non-local, he might not know the local cyclist-friendly roads, nor realize that the traffic level on the path makes it unsafe for plowing ahead at 25mph. Though the presence of parents with small children and strollers should have made that apparent.
In the end, it's not that hard to get along if people respect each others' rights and needs, and I've never understood why that's so difficult.
Daily Commute
Michiganboy, This could also teach a lesson to your older neighbor. Ask him to remember getting buzzed by a 20 mph cyclist on the path the next time he gets "stuck" behind a 20 mph cyclist on the road.
o-dog
the speed limits on the paths in my area are 12mph --- MNCPPC even says commuters trying to go over 12mph should use "alternative routes" - meaning the road I guess.
for good reason too, many of the paths are full of dumbasses using the path like their personal playground. last Friday on a whim I used the NE Branch trail to actually try to go somewhere, was promptly reminded of why I never use that trail for commuting purposes (and only once in a blue moon for recreational rides) and said never again I'm using my usual ROAD route to that place exclusively from now on.
CB HI
I didn't get that - seemed to me that he was giving the guy some benefit of the doubt because, as a non-local, he might not know the local cyclist-friendly roads, nor realize that the traffic level on the path makes it unsafe for plowing ahead at 25mph. Though the presence of parents with small children and strollers should have made that apparent.
In the end, it's not that hard to get along if people respect each others' rights and needs, and I've never understood why that's so difficult.
He might have startded by giving some benefit of the doubt, but he certainly did not end that way - "I told him he gave a bad name to cyclists everywhere with his attitude and that I wouldn't be surprised if he got his ass kicked by locals."
And you have suddenly increased the cyclist speed from the OPs stated 20 mph to 25 mph. Maybe next post, you will have the cyclist doing 30 mph down liniar playground.
Oh, wait the trail web site called it a "paved urban transportation corridor"; why are dogs and kids playing on a "paved urban transportation corridor"?
randya
hey racer boy slow down get a bell and learn how to use it
Blue Order
I absolutely agree with Mr. Underbridge's post:
In the end, it's not that hard to get along if people respect each others' rights and needs, and I've never understood why that's so difficult.
But isn't the argument in this thread indicative of a deeper problem-- that there simply aren't enough resources allocated to meet the diverse needs of our society? Cyclists need paths they can ride on for long distances at fast speeds. Other people need trails they can walk with their dogs and children. Both of those are valid needs. Instead of meeting both those needs, local governments try to make do with half-solutions-- MUPs that try to squeeze cyclists and pedestrians, their children, and their dogs all onto the same narrow strip of real estate. In that situation, we do all need to get along, but we should also be lobbying for more resources for all of us-- cycle paths for long, fast rides, and MUPs for pedestrians, children, dogs, pogo sticks...
CB HI
IBut isn't the argument in this thread indicative of a deeper problem-- that there simply aren't enough resources allocated to meet the diverse needs of our society? Cyclists need paths they can ride on for long distances at fast speeds. Other people need trails they can walk with their dogs and children. Both of those are valid needs. Instead of meeting both those needs, local governments try to make do with half-solutions-- MUPs that try to squeeze cyclists and pedestrians, their children, and their dogs all onto the same narrow strip of real estate. In that situation, we do all need to get along, but we should also be lobbying for more resources for all of us-- cycle paths for long, fast rides, and MUPs for pedestrians, children, dogs, pogo sticks..."Need" or nice to have?
Blue Order
"Need" or nice to have?If quality of life is important, need. If it's not important, nice to have.
But if quality of life isn't important, then things like police departments are "nice to have," while things like food are needed.
Roads..."needed," or "nice to have"?
randya
Instead of meeting both those needs, local governments try to make do with half-solutions-- MUPs that try to squeeze cyclists and pedestrians, their children, and their dogs all onto the same narrow strip of real estate. In that situation, we do all need to get along, but we should also be lobbying for more resources for all of us-- cycle paths for long, fast rides, and MUPs for pedestrians, children, dogs, pogo sticks...
I couldn't agree more!
Shame that Forester has based his entire anti-path paradigm on the shortcomings of a few poorly designed paths situated 40 years in the past...
Mr. Underbridge
He might have startded by giving some benefit of the doubt, but he certainly did not end that way - "I told him he gave a bad name to cyclists everywhere with his attitude and that I wouldn't be surprised if he got his ass kicked by locals."
And you have suddenly increased the cyclist speed from the OPs stated 20 mph to 25 mph. Maybe next post, you will have the cyclist doing 30 mph down liniar playground.
Oh, wait the trail web site called it a "paved urban transportation corridor"; why are dogs and kids playing on a "paved urban transportation corridor"?
I'd say the guy sounds like he removed the benefit of the doubt by insisting that he has a right to speed anywhere in any traffic condition. There's a reason it's called benefit of the 'doubt'.
I think you enjoy playing semantic games. Paved urban transportation corridor likely includes *walking* as a means of transportation. Also note that many cyclists enjoy cruising at 12mph. If that's the ambient traffic speed, and traffic is thick - as claimed - riding at *double* the traffic speed is pretty dangerous. I'd say tthat applies to any sort of traffic, including vehicular. Or do you generally fly along at 70 mph in a 35 zone?
Also, see how likely it is to get communities to sponsor construction of a paved trail when the aggressive cycling crowd comes out and says they want it restricted from all slower moving traffic. No kids, no strollers, no joggers, no dogs, nothing but cyclists. Good luck. Of course, given your position, that's probably your goal.
In the end, it seems you share the same 'I'll do what I want, my needs are most important, screw everyone else' attitude espoused by the cyclist in question. This, in general, is what causes many people to hate cyclists.
joejack951
:beer:
Shame that Forester has based his entire anti-path paradigm on the shortcomings of a few poorly designed paths situated 40 years in the past...
It's a shame that you cannot grasp what JF is for and against.
bones
Here in Beautiful Downtown Burbank, a MUP has been built and striped for peds and cyclists. This of course doesn't prevent people from walking several abreast across the entire path, or people obstinately walking/jogging alone in the striped and signed bike lanes, or the local "gang" of teenagers from using the whole width to practice their skateboarding tricks, or even a guy with a large dog on a 6' leash in each hand from walking down the exact center, randomly blocking the whole width.
The city of Long Beach is much smarter. They constructed TWO beach paths, parallel but separated by 50-100' of sand. One is striped and signed for peds, the other for cyclists. Unfortunately, the city can't control the intelligence of the people who come from all over LA to the beach, and both paths become congested with peds most of the time. Funny, I have never seen a cyclist riding on the path intended for peds...
ghettocruiser
In the end, it seems you share the same 'I'll do what I want, my needs are most important, screw everyone else' attitude espoused by the cyclist in question. This, in general, is what causes many people to hate cyclists.
And drivers.
And motorcyclists.
And skateboarders.
And pedestrians.
And dog-walkers.
And rollerbladers.
Or, are all these user groups universally well-mannered and well-loved where you live? Give it up.
billew
Hey, was he wearing his yellow jersey? When I go to a new place I don't act like an ass. I live in tourist town I know what it's like.:eek: