View Full Version : Sharing Trail With Walkers-Joggers
Daily Commute
09-07-04, 03:25 PM
As an aside... I've found that the most dangerous people on the path are the small children on bikes (with oblivious parents). They are completely unpredictable and are liable to swerve in any direction at any time. My roommate was forced off the path into a ditch by a little girl who was watching butterflies and careened into her.
I agree that children with oblivious parents are dangers to themselves and to others, but if your roomate had to careen into a ditch to avoid her, your roommate was going too fast. I'm an opponent of numeric speed limits on paths, but we all have to slow waaaaaay down near kids.
Allister
09-07-04, 05:05 PM
One of my most annoying pedestrian encounters was when I was mountain biking with some friends...As they went by us (finally parting at the last moment), one of them said "bikers are supposed to yield to pedestrians!". WTH??
Another case of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. Apparently they only know half the law. I'm only talking about Australian rules here (I can only assume similar rules apply over there), but there is also the rule that users of paths, and roads for that matter, are not to deliberately and unreasonably obstruct the path of other users, which is clearly what they were doing.
Why does it hurt them so much to move over for a few seconds to let you pass? Surely it's just common courtesy. My instinctive response to pigheaded nitwits like this is to go head down, arse up and aim at them. They'll move. This is also why I tend to avoid 'shared' paths.
Daily Commute
09-07-04, 06:56 PM
One of my most annoying pedestrian encounters was when I was mountain biking with some friends. We were on a flat and quite wide stretch of path. Towards us was walking a group of about 4 or 5 people, with a couple of dogs not on leashes. They took up the entire path. We were in a single line and slowed to about a walking pace. As we approached each other, they did not move at all so that we could get through. We couldn't actually get off the path--there was nowhere to go. As they went by us (finally parting at the last moment), one of them said "bikers are supposed to yield to pedestrians!".
Our rules say that cyclists yield to pedestrians, but that pedestrians are supposed to stay out of the way of cyclists. That seems fair.
Roughstuff
09-07-04, 07:22 PM
Why does it hurt them so much to move over for a few seconds to let you pass? Surely it's just common courtesy. My instinctive response to pigheaded nitwits like this is to go head down, arse up and aim at them. They'll move. This is also why I tend to avoid 'shared' paths.
WOW, Alister! And when drivers of CARS feel this way about CYCLISTS in the road, would you suggest that they run down those 'pigheaded nitwits' ? Tsk tsk tsk!!! :)
roughstuff
Allister
09-07-04, 07:56 PM
WOW, Alister! And when drivers of CARS feel this way about CYCLISTS in the road, would you suggest that they run down those 'pigheaded nitwits' ? Tsk tsk tsk!!! :)
roughstuff
The difference being that I'm not unreasonably blocking the entire road. I follow the rules - pedestrians blocking the entire path and refusing to make room aren't. See the difference? I've said this before: If I rode my bike on the road the same way pedestrians used shared paths, I'd be dead in a week.
I may not have been entirely clear either - I don't actually do that, I just feel like it sometimes. I'm as restrained as anyone when I use the path. I hardly ever use paths though and it's been several years since I've set tread on one. They're simply too chaotic for efficient cycling. I prefer the relative order of the road.
formicalinoleum
09-08-04, 11:26 AM
Why does it hurt them so much to move over for a few seconds to let you pass? Surely it's just common courtesy. My instinctive response to pigheaded nitwits like this is to go head down, arse up and aim at them. They'll move. This is also why I tend to avoid 'shared' paths.
Around here, there's no such thing as off-road trails that are for bikes only, so if I want to mountain bike, I have to deal with walkers/hikers/jogger. However, I can say that the situation I described was a one-off--I have encountered countless non-bikers on trails and the vast majority are very courteous.
davefarb
09-14-04, 03:30 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I assume everybody I'm approaching is psychotic and on another plane...I slow down and expect them to not notice me at all...hence, I've never hit one or been hit by one...yet...The only other solution is one I can't really act on...a 120 decibel horn/guided missle combo I dream about...
gpsblake
09-14-04, 07:50 PM
Every multi-use trail I have read requires cyclists yield to pedestrians. I also always assume the pedestrian doesn't know I am coming, even though I do use a bell. In other words, I slow down to pass them and only pass them when either I have enough room or I know they know I am behind them. Dogs are unpredictable and need to be treated as such. Small children also. A thing I have noticed is a lot of bicyclist think saying "on your left" is enough when trying to pass. That is BS. I see many bicyclist going 15-20mph saying "on your left" then passing them a few seconds later before the walkers can even react. If you don't have a bell that can be heard from a distance, you don't belong on a multi-use trail with a bike. Simple as that. In fact, the multi-use bike-walk trails where I live near REQUIRE a bell to be on a bicycle.
I also feel if you want to go 20mph on a trail that is busy with walkers and such, use the road. Safer.
I book on the paths when I can. At peak times (5:30 pm until dusk weekdays, and daylight hours on the weekend), I've kind of learned to enjoy the rhythm of the stop-and-go traffic on the path, yielding to peds and other (because I'm one too) recreational cyclists. It's fun to go fast, but it's also fun to dump some speed then kick it back in again to go around, weaving through the slower traffic.
I like to give ped-folk 4-5 seconds to react before I blow by. I also like to give them a complete statement of intention. "Coming by on your left!" The truly path-savvy just give a little wave and hold their line. Others, swivel their heads around, startle a bit, then step waaay to the right to give me and my monster machine (*ahem*) plenty of room. And I always say, "hi" or "thanks" on the way by.
So I don't think I've ever had a problem with peds. More troublesome are "sunday riders" who insist on riding abreast in twos and threes. I once came up on some kids on BMXs riding three abreast on the path. I gave them the usual, early "Coming by on the left!" They spent some time looking back at me and around at each other like they were trying to figure out who should do what. By that time I had slowed down and settled in on their back wheels. I said, "Excuse me, I'd like to pass in the left lane." They kind of looked around at each other again, then two peeled off to the right and one to the left, leaving me the entire path.
Daily Commute
09-16-04, 10:26 AM
Every multi-use trail I have read requires cyclists yield to pedestrians. I also always assume the pedestrian doesn't know I am coming, even though I do use a bell. In other words, I slow down to pass them and only pass them when either I have enough room or I know they know I am behind them. Dogs are unpredictable and need to be treated as such. Small children also. A thing I have noticed is a lot of bicyclist think saying "on your left" is enough when trying to pass. That is BS. I see many bicyclist going 15-20mph saying "on your left" then passing them a few seconds later before the walkers can even react. If you don't have a bell that can be heard from a distance, you don't belong on a multi-use trail with a bike. Simple as that. In fact, the multi-use bike-walk trails where I live near REQUIRE a bell to be on a bicycle.
I also feel if you want to go 20mph on a trail that is busy with walkers and such, use the road. Safer.
I generally agree with you, but I think walkers and joggers should be able to respond to an "on-your-left" in a second or two. If they can't, they shouldn't be on the path--they should be on the sidewalk or in the 99% of the parks reserved for pedestrians (we cyclists are allowed on only one narrow strip of the parks). That said, I agree with those who say we have to ride courteously and act as if the walkers and joggers are all insane lunatics. I use a bell from a good distance away. That tends to keep the foot-on-path crowd happy.
As to not going 20 mph when the path is "busy," I agree, but you and I may have different concepts of what "busy" means.
Litespeed
09-16-04, 07:25 PM
I don't use a bell, usually I just yell "On your left", that seems to work. Sometimes it will confuse people and they will move to the left. Sometimes I just yell "bicycle behind you!" loud enough and far enough back to let them decide which way they are going to move. My husband and I have had instances where we were on our tandem (I have a bell on the back) a group of people were standing out in the path, blocking it completely. They had plenty of room to stand on the grass instead. I starting ringing the bell long before we got to them and kept ringing it, they never budged. Even when my husband yelled at them they refused to move so we bearly had enough room to move around them and one woman finally did move a little. I consider that completely rude of them, I would have loved to yell at them but I'm not the type.
This touches one of my hot-button nerves. :mad: Fortunately the trail on which I commute every day isn't crowded. However, I've had a few run-ins with pedestrians who seem to think, well, I'm not sure what they seem to think. We're facing each other. They're taking up the entire paved trail width. They see me coming (at 20MPH) for quite a while. They make no attempt to move.
I've tried yelling. I've tried ringing my bell. Eventually someone will sort of squeeze to his or her right just enough for me to buzz by them with inches to spare. Curiously, this has happened three times and each time it has been adolescents.
And parents need to learn that the trail isn't a playground. Ever come head-on to a toddler pedaling as fast as it can, staring at its front tire? Fun stuff.
Most times, a bell or "on your left" works fine for overtaking. A lot of pedestrians will wave and/or verbally thank me as I pass them.
Bladers who wear headphones should be horsewhipped. That's as far as I'll go with that subject. :rolleyes:
It's a shared use trail. That means I'll share with you, and you WILL share with me. I'm sort of militant that way, like some of you guys are with cars on roads.
As for dogs... I'm a HUGE "dog person", so even if I get into a tangle with one (I haven't), I wouldn't mind unless there was a collision. I did have one funny thing happen on a morning commute: A woman was running on the dirt next to the path with a somewhat overweight and unleashed Border Collie. I dinged my bell and passed them. Well the Collie decided, "Hey, that guy is WAY more interesting than this slow woman here", and took off running next to my bike. Not trying to herd me or get in front. Just galloping along next to me. The woman was yelling. The dog's tongue was hanging out. It was having the time of its life. I figured it would give up and go back, but no. Eventually I had to stop because I was laughing so hard. The dog was ecstatic.
gpsblake
09-17-04, 01:59 PM
I generally agree with you, but I think walkers and joggers should be able to respond to an "on-your-left" in a second or two. If they can't, they shouldn't be on the path
You are assuming they can hear you when you are coming up behind them.
1) A lot of them wear headphones while walking/jogging etc. Impossible for them to hear you.
2) You assume they can hear you saying that.
Think about it. You coming up on them at 20mph which means you have to be able to yell 150 feet to give them a few seconds notice you are coming. Go to a football field and see how loud you have to speak in order to be heard clearly at 150feet away.
Again friend, I always assume they can't tell I am coming unless they look back at me. A bell does make a big difference although even a bell doesn't guarantee anything. And then I pass with caution and enough speed so if a something would happen, I can react in time for the safety of all of us.
gpsblake
09-17-04, 02:09 PM
Eventually someone will sort of squeeze to his or her right just enough for me to buzz by them with inches to spare. Curiously, this has happened three times and each time it has been adolescents.
That is you being irresponsible plain and simple, on your part. If you are going that fast and give yourself so little time to react, that is 100% your fault. It is your fault because you have the power to prevent it. Your own words "buzzing by them with inches to spare" is 100% your fault. You have no right to buzz by anyone at that speed within inches. You can prevent that 100%. Even if it means slowing down to 5mph, then you slow down to 5mph. Since you say this rarely happens, then this should not be a big deal. Slow down long before that happens and you won't come within inches of getting yourself or others hurt. They There isn't a cop who wouldn't incite you for ramming your bicycle into a adolescent at 20mph and would find you at fault.
This is an example of why if you want to go 20mph down a multiuse trail with people walking on it a bicycle, use the road. Safer for everyone.
Cheers,
That is you being irresponsible plain and simple, on your part.
I should clarify. I don't buzz them at 20MPH. I'm decelerating as I approach.
My point was that they've had plenty of time to make a hole for me, and they don't, for whatever reason. Re-read what I wrote. We're approaching from opposite directions and they've got quite a long period of time to slide right 2 or 3 feet. I'm not coming up from behind or appearing from out of nowhere.
Our trail is in the process of being re-signed. I've already put in a few requests to include "keep right" and "allow safe passing" as part of the signage. Hopefully they listen to me.
gpsblake
09-17-04, 10:09 PM
[QUOTE=vtjim]I should clarify. I don't buzz them at 20MPH. I'm decelerating as I approach.[QUOTE]
Ok fair enough, I took as you weren't giving an inch either & I apologize for getting a little bit angry about it. Just as we deal with car drivers who are complete ####'s, there are walkers who also act like complete ####'s or simply don't understand what do but it is our responsibility to avoid them first. And frankly, there are bicyclist who are complete #### who expect everyone to immediately clear a path for them flying at 20mph. We are the vehicles, they are not. I just don't assume anything from them just like cars at an intersection, I don't assume what they are going to do. But even you have to admit, they are in the minority. Most walkers will gladly give me room when they hear my bell. I also assume though that many are wearing headphones or such and don't hear me. Small children and dogs are always unpredictable. I simply don't allow them to get to me. I've had teens on purpose block the entire path on purpose & even harass me by saying "gimme your bike" etc. I simply wait out my time and pass them when I get the room.
If I am riding for speed, I avoid the paths and simply ride the road.
Daily Commute
09-18-04, 03:17 AM
You are assuming they can hear you when you are coming up behind them.
1) A lot of them wear headphones while walking/jogging etc. Impossible for them to hear you.
2) You assume they can hear you saying that.
Think about it. You coming up on them at 20mph which means you have to be able to yell 150 feet to give them a few seconds notice you are coming. Go to a football field and see how loud you have to speak in order to be heard clearly at 150feet away.
Again friend, I always assume they can't tell I am coming unless they look back at me. A bell does make a big difference although even a bell doesn't guarantee anything. And then I pass with caution and enough speed so if a something would happen, I can react in time for the safety of all of us.
Again, I don't think we disagree. When you quoted me, you left out the part where I said, "we have to ride courteously and act as if the walkers and joggers are all insane lunatics." In another post in this thread, I said, "we all have to slow waaaaaay down near kids."
We have to slow down around idiots, but that doesn't absolve idiot pedestrians of their idiocy. Pedestrians who meander thoughtlessly across the the path have no right to complain about fast cyclists. But even though many complaining pedestrians are hypocrites, we still have to ride safely.
PainTrain
09-20-04, 10:50 AM
I commute on a multi-use trail that is fairly open during weekday rush. Weekends are a different matter.
My new bike came with a bell (bright chrome, took some ribbing for that at work, oh well), which I have found effective in warning both pedestrians (polite responses so far) and wildlife (squirrels, deer and turkeys).
I have a question: My wife and I use the same trail (American River Parkway) to push our baby in her stroller. We started on the left but were chastised by a passing biker ("Yer on the wrong side! "). We wondered if we should be on the right because the stroller is a wheeled vehicle.
I finally decided we take the right side because it's safer for baby; debris thrown up by passing bikes won't fly right at her face, for instance. Should we be on the left?
We don't walk abreast, btw.
I think consensus is to walk on the right, but I'd almost prefer peds to walk left because those with their backs to me will be on the other side of the trail, and those on my side of the trail will see me coming. But really, it's nice when they just stick to one half of the trail. I don't care which half.
The safety of either left or right walking probably depends heavily on the path and the density of users. The trail I ride is usually very open with long sight distances. (Paved rail trail.)
You know what I find seems to work better for critters? I squeak. :) Like a really loud "kissing" sound. Works for dogs, too. Bells don't seem to phase animals much.
Daily Commute
09-20-04, 01:40 PM
My wife and I use the same trail (American River Parkway) to push our baby in her stroller. We started on the left but were chastised by a passing biker ("Yer on the wrong side! "). We wondered if we should be on the right because the stroller is a wheeled vehicle.
I finally decided we take the right side because it's safer for baby; debris thrown up by passing bikes won't fly right at her face, for instance. Should we be on the left?
We don't walk abreast, btw.
On nearly every multi-use path I've been on, all users (including cyclists, pedestrians, rollerbladers and pogo-stick riders) are supposed to stay to the right. On your path, do what the rest of the pedestrians do. The key thing is to be predictable. If there is no standard behavior, God help you.
I have a question: My wife and I use the same trail (American River Parkway) to push our baby in her stroller. We started on the left but were chastised by a passing biker ("Yer on the wrong side! "). We wondered if we should be on the right because the stroller is a wheeled vehicle.
AFAIK, in the US you should be on the right. The left lane is oncoming. Here in Lincoln, NE, the bike paths are painted with a broken yellow line and you ride (or walk or jog) on them just like they were streets with a broken yellow line. Well, that's the idea anyway.
PainTrain
09-20-04, 10:21 PM
The signage directs walk/joggers to the left shoulder, but of course the shoulder is no go for the stroller, so right side it is. Thanks for the replies.
Erick L
09-20-04, 10:31 PM
...the bike paths are painted with a broken yellow line and you ride (or walk or jog) on them just like they were streets with a broken yellow line.
I heard the same thing here... but pedestrians are supposed to be walking against traffic, so "do as on the streets" would mean walking on the left. Most people walk on the right though. As long as they don't zig and zag, I'm happy.
close_call
09-21-04, 12:39 PM
I commute to work by bike in Chicago and regularly use the lakefront path....I constantly have to dodge groups of people walking down the middle of the path and it is frustrating to have to slow down for people who are in my way....I've tried the "on your left" technique but apparently on your left means move over to your left for some pedestrians...I've nearly taken people out even after I try to be a responsible rider.I think there should be wider jogger/pedestrian paths so we all can ride safely and not have to dodge tourists from Indiana.
gpsblake
09-21-04, 01:25 PM
Folks this is real simple.
a) use a bell, not "on your left". On a lot of bike-walk trails, it is law to have a bike bell. To use "on your left" you have to assume the walker can hear you, which is unlikely considering you have to be on top of them for them to hear you, and/or they have to understand what you mean.
b) If you want to go 20mph or use the path as a speed ride and there are walkers present, use the street. Safer for you and them.
close_call
09-21-04, 01:38 PM
it's also really simple to understand that:
1.bells don't always have a place on every bike
2.the paths have a specific hard dirt section for walkers and joggers which is very wide(in Chicago),yet they are only used occasionally.you never see a biker barreling down a dirt jogging path but why are all the joggers on our path???
megaman
09-21-04, 01:39 PM
I constantly have to dodge groups of people walking down the middle of the path and it is frustrating to have to slow down for people who are in my way....I've tried the "on your left" technique but apparently on your left means move over to your left for some pedestrians...I've nearly taken people out even after I try to be a responsible rider.I think there should be wider jogger/pedestrian paths so we all can ride safely and not have to dodge tourists from Indiana.
Every bike path has it's "tourists". That's why I don't understand why cyclists just call out "on your left". That's telling a newbie on the path to move left. I think they really do want to stay out of your way but don't always know how. "Passing on your left" adds only one word and is much more informative to newbies.
Having recently ridden two city bike paths (supposedly rail-trails), it's painfully obvious why everyone wants to get the heck out of Dodge on weekends. The paths need to be signed better with rules of the path for everyone using it and direction signs so cyclists don't get lost. I like rural rail trails better. Sure there's idoits out there too, but there are fewer of them.
megaman
09-21-04, 01:46 PM
Folks this is real simple.
a) use a bell, not "on your left". On a lot of bike-walk trails, it is law to have a bike bell. To use "on your left" you have to assume the walker can hear you, which is unlikely considering you have to be on top of them for them to hear you, and/or they have to understand what you mean.
If I were walking I might not be able to hear a bell. I have somewhat of a hearing loss. I hear deeper sounds like male voices better than mechanical things. So you could have a problem with me if was in front of you.
gpsblake
09-21-04, 06:28 PM
it's also really simple to understand that:
1.bells don't always have a place on every bike
2.the paths have a specific hard dirt section for walkers and joggers which is very wide(in Chicago),yet they are only used occasionally.you never see a biker barreling down a dirt jogging path but why are all the joggers on our path???
1) Yes they do. You can always put a bell on a bicycle. If not, remove something and put it there. What would you have that would pervent you from having a bell?
2) "our path"? You are so out of touch. It is thier path also, in fact, they have the right of way. Maybe walkers should use a Critical Mass on the public use path and see how you like it.
gpsblake
09-21-04, 06:30 PM
If I were walking I might not be able to hear a bell. I have somewhat of a hearing loss. I hear deeper sounds like male voices better than mechanical things. So you could have a problem with me if was in front of you.
Okay but you are in the minority. But for most people, they would hear a bell long before hearing a male voice. They also understand what a bell means, "on your left" people might not understand. A bell is much more hearable than a voice in nearly most cases. You are an exception though.
Daily Commute
09-22-04, 06:41 AM
If I were walking I might not be able to hear a bell. I have somewhat of a hearing loss. I hear deeper sounds like male voices better than mechanical things. So you could have a problem with me if was in front of you.
If you can't hear bells, you should ride and walk as if someone is always about to pass you from behind. At some times of day on some parts of the path, I would go hoarse if I shouted "passing on your left" to every person I passed. The bell has become standard practice, so I don't think you can expect people to change that.
I am NOT saying cyclists should be able to run you down. Cyclists should still ride with care. But you should walk or ride as if the cyclists behind you are depraved lunatics.
bells don't always have a place on every bike.
What kind of bike are you talking about?
I'd say that if your bike doesn't have a place for a bell, you don't have a place on the path.
TheNJDevil
09-22-04, 11:06 AM
I like to ride as fast as I can most of the time (upwards of 30mph). But, I have a rule that I will not pass any peds/bladers/other bikes at more than 12mph. I generally will pass people that are coming toward me at 12mph (assuming they have made eye contact with me). I'll pass peds & bladers at below 10mph after letting them know that I am approaching to pass.
On busy path times I don't ever reach 20mph, but that is how it is if you want to ride on the path. Other times I have to only slow down to make it thru some of the curvy sections.
JavaMan
09-29-04, 04:02 PM
There's a bike trail I can take on part of my commute, but I only use it on those days when I am tired and going slow. Then I don't know whether to use English or Spanish, so I just yell "Excuse Me". You have a lot more patience than I do, Ranger. I'd rather swim with the cars. They are much more predictable and you catch more draft from them than you do off joggers.
Tom
sapolin
10-05-04, 01:09 PM
«I've found that the most dangerous people on the path are the small children on bikes (with oblivious parents). They are completely unpredictable and are liable to swerve in any direction at any time.»
They often do...
Last time I met little children, they were fiddling a lot, going in «S» all over the entire lenght of the bike path, with daddy in tow (recreational riding, you can imagine). There was clear and present danger, so I slowed down a bit (I was not that fast paced, but way faster than the kid), but the kid continued to «S» left and right as I was approaching. At about 150 meters from the kid, I had no choice but to resort to yelling «Drive Straight, would you ?». The kid's driving went back straight, but then the dafddy gave me the skunk eye.
I'd have killed the dad. But I must always remember my anger management skills...
boilermaker1
10-06-04, 02:49 PM
sapolin---If you think you're gonna kill a father who thinks you're threatening his kids you have another thing comin'. His Darwinian brain is gonna go into adrenaline overdrive and he'll kill you. You're merely annoyed, he's protecting his young. You wouldn't stand a chance.
sapolin
10-13-04, 08:14 PM
sapolin---If you think you're gonna kill a father who thinks you're threatening his kids you have another thing comin'. His Darwinian brain is gonna go into adrenaline overdrive and he'll kill you. You're merely annoyed, he's protecting his young. You wouldn't stand a chance.
With the glazed looks in his eyes, I doubt he would have been any trouble to me. I was in adrenalin overdrive FIRST... so yelling was a good first discharge...
I was not threatening his kid: I was protecting his kid (and, yes, I slowed down), so, in a sense, I was DOING HIS (the father's) JOB !
Why do they REPRODUCE ?
(The future's remedy is vasectomy !)
Daily Commute
10-14-04, 05:46 AM
With the glazed looks in his eyes, I doubt he would have been any trouble to me. I was in adrenalin overdrive FIRST... so yelling was a good first discharge...
I was not threatening his kid: I was protecting his kid (and, yes, I slowed down), so, in a sense, I was DOING HIS (the father's) JOB ! * * *
One of the biggest problems with bike/multi-use is that too many users have unrealistic expectations. Sapolin clearly knew he had to slow down for the kids, but other cyclists don't. Cyclists can't expect to be able to race on the paths. And, like cars on the road, cyclists must be prepared to go more slowly when conditions require.
But pedestrians can't expect to be able to take a leisurely, meandering stroll. They also can't expect to be able to hold a conversation with someone walking next to them. Like cyclists, they need to stay single file. They have to be on constant alert for cyclists, roller-bladers and others. Parents can't realistically take their kids biking on the paths until the kids have learned how to ride responsibly. If the kids aren't responsible enough to bike on the road, they probably aren't responsible enough to bike on the path.
Every bike path has it's "tourists". That's why I don't understand why cyclists just call out "on your left". That's telling a newbie on the path to move left. I think they really do want to stay out of your way but don't always know how. "Passing on your left" adds only one word and is much more informative to newbies.
I have recently started experimenting with saying "Stay to your right" when I pass walkers on local trails. It seems to be working much better than any formulation including the word "left" which automatically (here in chicago anyway) brings a walker straight left. I also notice that on the more "athletic" trails ... where virtually everyone there is out for exercise ... people do much, much better. Joggers and walkers stay right. Everyone looks back before passing. and even those with headphones follow trail conventions. My best experience with this is the Green Bay Trial at about 10 a.m. on a weekday. There are a few strollers, but the moms are in spandex and moving their butts power-walking or jogging. That's a trail and a time when you can cruise. Other trails and especially sundays and lunch-hours are full of people spaced out, and wandering. Or, maybe 2 and 3 abreast socializing ... that is time to hit the street (or enjoy the leaves and coast alot).
Be safe out there!
'nother
10-31-04, 04:13 PM
I am an "on your left" guy. Actually if the person or group in front of me is in the "potentially unstable" or clueless category, I slow waaaaay down and say, "*passing* on your left". 99% of the time, the response is, "thank you" and a move to the right. I always anticipate that they'll move to the left (it's just not practical to say "passing on your left, please stay right, don't whirl around and then move left"!).
But today I had a doozie. I was going uphill ( == already very slow), and encountered a guy with 2 small kids about 10 yards ahead of him on the path. Recognizing this as potentially unstable, I slowed down even more and unclipped, anticipating the need to have to come out if the kids moved. I said "passing on your left", and passed them all with plenty of room to spare (does this count as "yielding"???).
The response was an angry shout from the father, "*YOU* BETTER WATCH OUT FOR *US*!!! I was startled, so at the top of the hill I stopped and said to the guy, "you know I was trying to be polite, right?", and the guy is like, "YOU HAVE TO YIELD! WE DON'T WATCH OUT FOR YOU YOU WATCH OUT FOR US!", I said, "yeah, I know, that's why I left FOUR FEET of room when I passed you, I was trying to be courteous to let you know I was there." He said, "you're only giving yourself a courtesy, we're not getting out of the way for you!". I gave up and pedaled off after that, no winning that argument.
Fortunately, most people are not total ****heads like this, leaving me still a proponent of the "on your left" signal. You just have to remember that saying it still doesn't give you the RIGHT to pass, all the responsibility is still on you to pass safely, even if you have to take a dive to avoid hitting someone. But still, there's no way I'm going to slow to 2mph until there are absolutely no pedestrians anywhere to be seen (as this guy seemed to imply was what I should have done), it *is* designated multi-use, we *SHARE*.
On my bike path, as on most others, pedestrians do have the right-of-way. I use my bell and slow way down when walkers are near the center of the path, but on Sundays the foot traffic and slow bike traffic there is so heavy, only the person willing to take the most leisurely of rides would chance it. I just take the roads on Sunday.
The trail rules are clearly posted at each entrance of the Greenway on which I ride, but the instruction for pedestrians to stay right apparently is not completely followed. As frustrating as getting behind a slow-moving clot of pedestrians is, seeing a cyclist barreling down on/blowing by a family group at a high rate of speed really boils my blood. Some of these same riders will not take the road because it is too "dangerous". So they put pedestrians in danger, instead.
PainTrain
11-01-04, 09:51 AM
an angry shout from the father, "*YOU* BETTER WATCH OUT FOR *US*!!!
I wouldn't be surprised if this reaction had nothing to do with you at all, but Dad's anger at having his kids menaced by 30mph roadies before you came along. There are many along a section of trail my family uses (we're pushing a stroller) who delight in frightening peds with high-speed near-misses.
Dchiefransom
11-01-04, 10:14 AM
1) Yes they do. You can always put a bell on a bicycle. If not, remove something and put it there. What would you have that would pervent you from having a bell?
2) "our path"? You are so out of touch. It is thier path also, in fact, they have the right of way. Maybe walkers should use a Critical Mass on the public use path and see how you like it.
Nice post. Now go down to your LBS and look at the new road bikes. They can't fit a light mount on the handlebars, and the stem is too big for any mounts also. Bell mounts aren't any bigger than light mounts. When my club has ridden on the local trail, I've actually had to put the bell on my bike with a zip tie, to be legal. It would be almost impossible to use it like that, but I'm at least not going to get a ticket.
'nother
11-01-04, 02:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if this reaction had nothing to do with you at all, but Dad's anger at having his kids menaced by 30mph roadies before you came along. There are many along a section of trail my family uses (we're pushing a stroller) who delight in frightening peds with high-speed near-misses.
Yeah, that's very likely to be the deal -- it was Sunday afternoon and I noticed several other cyclists around. But I was just a little surprised, never had a reaction like that before. Just a reminder to avoid those kinds of areas at peak times and/or stick to roads, I guess.
Just a comment on this, I very much doubt that many cyclists actually "delight" in purposely frightening peds, I suspect the more common outlook is that they'd just like to get down the path on their merry way with as little resistance as possible; I know that's my mind set . . . I don't really wanna bother anyone but I know it's my responsibility to make sure they're not bothered :)
PainTrain
11-01-04, 10:49 PM
Normally I would agree. I get the impression these are 'posers' who like to be seen going fast.
Daily Commute
11-02-04, 07:44 PM
People who expect to take leisurely strolls on bike/MU paths are like cyclists who expect to take leisurely rides on 45 mph roads. I defend pedestrain rights to be on Bike/MU paths just like I defend cyclist rights to be on 45 mph roads. But if pedestrians want a leisurely stroll free of "fast-moving" cyclists, they should use any the sidewalks or one of the pedestrian-only paths the city has designated.
That said, we cyclists have to treat the unrealistic pedestrians the same way we expect cars to treat us. When on a bike/MU path, we have to ride so that we won't hit pedestrians. If that means slowing down from time to time, so be it.
'nother
11-02-04, 10:02 PM
I agree with that view, but the problem is the simple statement of most (all?) M/U trails that, "pedestrians have the right of way" and/or "cyclists yield to pedestrians", unconditionally . . . which really makes them "pedestrain trails that allow cyclists, provided the cyclists are effectively invisible to everyone else on the trail".
They should really be called multi-*access* trails, because they are really only single-*use* (leisurely, nearly-unconcious walking) at many times.
Perhaps a better definition of "yielding" and/or "right of way" is in order?
My opinion is that it may be the law that pedestrians have the so-called right of way, but morally everyone has an obligation to share the trail. That means you keep to one side, and you allow safe passing, and you pass safely, regardless of your mode of transport. It's the polite thing to do, and if you're a parent, you should teach your kids those ideals, too.
I completely agree that if pedestrians are having problems with fast roadies, maybe they shouldn't be walking on the trail... I walk on my trail too from time to time, and I make a point to stay out of the way of the cyclists. I'm biased that way, of course.
iceratt
11-03-04, 08:22 AM
Is Minneapolis the only place that has parallel trails for bikes and walkers? Pedestrians on bike trails are very rare here.
Daily Commute
11-03-04, 09:22 AM
My opinion is that it may be the law that pedestrians have the so-called right of way, but morally everyone has an obligation to share the trail. That means you keep to one side, and you allow safe passing, and you pass safely, regardless of your mode of transport. It's the polite thing to do, and if you're a parent, you should teach your kids those ideals, too. . . . .
Part of the problem with the paths (at least in my town) is that they are nearly lawless. There are posted "rules," but legally, they are nothing more than the suggestions of the Parks and Rec director. So legally, walkers can meander to their hearts content. And cyclists can weave around the meandering walkers at 35 mph. Which brings us back to vtjim's point about using common courtesy.
steve_wmn
11-03-04, 09:26 AM
Is Minneapolis the only place that has parallel trails for bikes and walkers? Pedestrians on bike trails are very rare here.
Possibly. I ride the trails in the North Mississippi Regional Park between I-694 and the 42nd St Bridge fairly often and there the trails are mostly multi-use. But they're also very lightly trafficked, especially at 7:00AM when I typically go through. I encounter about 1 pedestrian a mile. But the multi-use trails are posted with a speed limit of 10 MPH and I uh, sometimes exceed this ;). But I do slow down for the occasional pedestrian. Roller bladers are rare as hell so I don't have to deal with them much.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.