Advocacy & Safety - Cyclists harassing pedestrians on local bike path?

Our local bike path, along the beautiful Pacific shore and connecting 6 towns, is heavily used in some sections by visiting tourists, most of whom are pedestrians. Our town, which has one of those heavily used sections, has the only city ordinance designating the striped lanes "Bikes Only" but there is no separation from the adjoining pedestrian shoulder. I've seen close calls between pedestrians and cyclists but I've never heard of any enforcement of the ordinance nor have I seen any harassment of anyone. I guess it has happened enough times, though, to instigate a change. It will become an official MUP like in the adjoining cities. Frankly I just slow down in these sections. If I want to go fast I use the streets that are alongside many sections of the path. Here (http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_11489446?nclick_check=1) is the story:

Somewhat unfortunate that because pedestrians can't understand the rules, they're just going to change it so that pedestrians are no longer in the wrong for wandering on to bike paths. The idea of a cyclist only path would be nice for people looking to cycle for exercise without having to constantly slow down to avoid peds.

That said, it's never right to assault someone for misinterpreting the rules.

The idea of a cyclist only path would be nice...

Doesn't matter - you'll get peds on it who think anything paved is exclusively theirs.

-Kurt

Then maybe you should slap them as you ride by or... oh wait, I see how we got here ;)

Yep. We have a somewhat extensive bike trail system here in town. In several areas, the bike path runs closely parallel to the sidewalk, running closely parallel to the street. Guess where the peds walk? :rolleyes: Fortunately, it's not too many of them.

That said, we have a too-good trail system. I have gotten yelled at by ignorant motorists that I'm "supposed to ride on the bike trail." :rolleyes:

Before I cycled, hearing "Left" yelled really loudly at me was startling - perhaps some peds are overreacting to us screaming.

On the other hand, I live in a college town and we have this sidewalk underpass that is separated into 3 lanes via little poles for Eastbound cyclists, Westbound cyclists, and peds. I am always amazed by people always walking to wrong way on the bike lanes.

When I see an old person on a power chair going the wrong way on the road, then I'll understand.

I use our only greenway when traffic is minimal; I got tired of telling pedestrians they were in the wrong lane, often pointing out this fact while they were standing on the bicycle icon painted on the path.

The greenway is meant for slow, leisurely riding anyways. Must be why I see so many 'bents out there. :)

People in the US in general seem to have an issue with following directives...

I suspect it is caused in part by a sense of entitlement, as in; may tax dollars paid for it, by God I am going to use it. MUP's are the spawn of the devil, they are worthless for a serious cycle commuter, but in many areas you are required to use them by law, which BTW should be illegal. (sidepath laws)

Aaron:)

MUP's are the spawn of the devil, they are worthless for a serious cycle commuter, but in many areas you are required to use them by law, which BTW should be illegal. (sidepath laws)

MANY areas? Really? Where are all these required-to-use MUPs located? And how many, if any, "serious cycle commuters" are being inconvenienced in fact (not theory) by this "requirement"?

People in the US in general seem to have an issue with following directives...

http://ventriloquismnyc.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/summerstreets-wrong-way.jpg

http://www.overduijn.net/images/wrongway2.jpg

http://thisisframingham.com/images/onewayjerk.jpg

http://www.goodexperience.com/broken/images/bankdoors.jpg

http://www.goodexperience.com/broken/images/tsop.jpg

-Kurt

MANY areas? Really? Where are all these required-to-use MUPs located? And how many, if any, "serious cycle commuters" are being inconvenienced in fact (not theory) by this "requirement"?

I will let you do the research, but in SC they have the sidepath law and can ticket a cyclist for not using them. Goose Creek, SC to be exact. By a "serious cycle commuter" I mean someone that is going from point A to point B and is not just out wandering around. And BTW the MUP's in Goose Creek go directly to nowhere but you are expected to use them.

Aaron:)

Cyclists sound like car drivers when they end up with a cyclist in front of them that is outside the bike lane. Make it a MUP, then the cyclists can slow down to the walkers speed and wait until it is safe to pass. After all, it's NEVER more than a few seconds.

the thing that bothers me about peds on a bike path is that the idea that there might be a bicycle using the bike path seems to have never occurred to most of them. I don't think I should have to slow to walking pace, that's inconsiderate of them. Otherwise I have no problem slowing down somewhat. The number of cyclists on roads that act the same way is fairly small in my experience.

There is a short bike path on Penn State campus that is split by a railing from the pedestrian walkway. Of course, this was an entirely pointless effort. Last time I rode on it, all the ped traffic was on the bicycle side. But now I have a bell. I suspect that most of the assault was people warning peds by yelling. Nobody likes being yelled at, even when they are being oblivious and stupid.

I live in phoenix... there is an 80 mile paved canal that I ride. I get harrassed all the time, peds refuse to put dogs on leashes (and yell or flip you off when you tell them its the law), they take up the whole path, put rocks in mtb trails to make you crash (and I have done that), and just get in the way on purpose, but then again, there are hot headed bikers that scream at toddlers (which was once me)

I have never yelled at a ped on a bike path. I must say I've been tempted, but then I remember what I don't like about my interactions with motor vehicle operators.

Pedestrians have it worse than cyclists in a lot of cases. In most of the places I've lived, there are satisfactory routes I can take almost everywhere on my bike. The same is not true for many destinations for pedestrians. One of the nicest bike paths around here is a good example. There are a lot of neighborhoods near the bike path that don't have sidewalks at all, and many are designed in such a way that walking is somewhat hazardous because there is fast auto traffic.

Our local bike path, along the beautiful Pacific shore and connecting 6 towns, is heavily used in some sections by visiting tourists, most of whom are pedestrians. Our town, which has one of those heavily used sections, has the only city ordinance designating the striped lanes "Bikes Only" but there is no separation from the adjoining pedestrian shoulder.

Huh, I was about to tell you about the MUP that switches to a bike only path here in Monterey/PG, but then realized that that was the very trail you were talking about.

I think part of the problem is that for a god long portion of it, it is a MUP, and then when it gets to PG city limits, it turns into a bike only trail, with a dirt pedestrian path along the side. If it was all bike only, the entire way, I think it might work better, but as it is, it causes problems, as you are well aware of. What I do when I am riding on it, is stay my path until I am completely sure the pedestrians see me, and then go around them somewhat closely, and mention "this is a bike path" in a normal tone of voice as I go by. Not loudly, and not fast, as I slow down to pretty slow speeds when peds are on the bike path. Even when there are no peds visible, I still am going only about 10 mph on the bike path, or the MUP, for that matter, as you can never tell who is going to jump out and from where.

Regardless, I don't think it is going to work with the switch from a bike path to a MUP, and it will probably change to a MUP the entire way. Oh well. When I want a hard ride, I just do the hills on 17 mile drive and then back out to Seaside, where there is much less ped traffic on the MUP

... Regardless, I don't think it is going to work with the switch from a bike path to a MUP, and it will probably change to a MUP the entire way. Oh well. When I want a hard ride, I just do the hills on 17 mile drive and then back out to Seaside, where there is much less ped traffic on the MUP

I hear ya. The "Bike Only" portion is a de facto MUP anyway. I don't think it's feasible to keep pedestrians and bikes separated by ordinance alone. Even every pedestrian stayed off the lanes there would still be all the roller-blades, skateboards, surreys, munchkins on training wheels, etc. When I ride this "bike" path I reduce my speed, raise my vigilance and enjoy the view. If I'm in a hurry I'll stay on the adjoining or nearby streets. Even there I'm often moving faster than the carloads of tourists taking in the coastal view.

I will let you do the research, but in SC they have the sidepath law and can ticket a cyclist for not using them. Goose Creek, SC to be exact. By a "serious cycle commuter" I mean someone that is going from point A to point B and is not just out wandering around. And BTW the MUP's in Goose Creek go directly to nowhere but you are expected to use them.

Aaron:)

So how many "serious" commuter are being required to go to nowhere on the MUP in the Goose Creek, SC area, instead of where they want to go?

No thanks, I am not going to do the likely fruitless research to substantiate somebody else's specious claim about the extent of this alleged problem for "serious" commuter cyclists.

So how many "serious" commuter are being required to go to nowhere on the MUP in the Goose Creek, SC area, instead of where they want to go?

No thanks, I am not going to do the likely fruitless research to substantiate somebody else's specious claim about the extent of this alleged problem for "serious" commuter cyclists.

I have been threatened with a ticket in Goose Creek, SC for not riding on the sidepath. I would have welcomed the ticket and the opportunity to have my day in court. FWIW I was riding on a major US highway on the way to work. It is the most direct route, the bike path that I was told I HAD to use would add over 2 miles to the commute, not to mention extra time due to the number of crossings, driveways, dogwalkers, joggers, strollers and debris.

Aaron:)

Here in LA County (county/city ordinance directs here, not state), we're only required to use the dedicated bike lanes--those that are painted/marked on the streets (as long as they're not obstructed). We're not required to use the bike path. In my town, fortunately the bike path is pretty decent, actually taking us across the valley in directions we may actually want to go.

I have been threatened with a ticket in Goose Creek, SC for not riding on the sidepath. I would have welcomed the ticket and the opportunity to have my day in court. FWIW I was riding on a major US highway on the way to work. It is the most direct route, the bike path that I was told I HAD to use would add over 2 miles to the commute, not to mention extra time due to the number of crossings, driveways, dogwalkers, joggers, strollers and debris.

Aaron:)

I did some additional checking SC repealed the side path law in 2008. The incident above occurred in 2007. Finally some progress is made...now about the infrastructure...

Aaron:)

I have been threatened with a ticket in Goose Creek, SC for not riding on the sidepath. I would have welcomed the ticket and the opportunity to have my day in court. FWIW I was riding on a major US highway on the way to work. It is the most direct route, the bike path that I was told I HAD to use would add over 2 miles to the commute, not to mention extra time due to the number of crossings, driveways, dogwalkers, joggers, strollers and debris.


Well that's one, quite a difference than many, though I have to question the "requirement" (rather than a demand from an out of line law officer) to take a sidepath that adds 2 miles to the commute. I've never heard of a traffic rule that requires cyclists to take an alternive sidepath that wasn't parallel to the road.

See?
If it weren't for motorists, we'd have to deal with all these clueless, ipodestrians all over the streets!

Well that's one, quite a difference than many, though I have to question the "requirement" (rather than a demand from an out of line law officer) to take a sidepath that adds 2 miles to the commute. I've never heard of a traffic rule that requires cyclists to take an alternive sidepath that wasn't parallel to the road.

Because ultimately the sidepath ends up at the same location I was headed for on the main road, but it doesn't follow the main road. In his eyes bicycles don't belong on the road, contrary to that states laws. Like I said, I would have welcomed the ticket and the chance to fight it in court, however given the attitudes around that small town, it probably would have been a case of blind justice at it's finest.

Aaron:)

See?
If it weren't for motorists, we'd have to deal with all these clueless, ipodestrians all over the streets!You don't? It's not all that stressful, but on the terminal portion of my commute I have to deal with the most clueless, scofflaw, jaywalking-without-looking pedestrians I have ever seen. Today, I had to avoid a person on a cellphone jaywalking diagonally across an intersection. I was impressed that she waited for the light to turn. The layout of the intersection is very bad, there is an s-turn to go straight. But she chose to make the crossing even more dangerous, which I didn't think was possible.

I did some additional checking SC repealed the side path law in 2008.

But using the boilerplate in that law, I found a LOT more. Probably calls for a separate topic of its own:

bicycle riders "shall use" such path and "shall not use the roadway" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=en-us&q=bicycle+riders+%22shall+use%22+such+path+and+%22shall+not+use+the+roadway%22&btnG=Search)

930 hits, though some of them are about repeals, such as one in Georgia cited by Emory University.

--

back on topic:

1) I tried routing around a bit of a MUP that I'd included in my commute because the path is officially closed after sunset, but found one of the intersections too hairy. I'm back on the path for now (Los Gatos Creek Trail for 1 mile in San Jose).

2) The bike path along West Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz was originally paid for with bike-specific transportation grants (IIRC: can't find cite), but there aren't even sidewalks along the street, so expecting to travel at more than "cruiser" speed, esp. on a weekend is just silly. There's no signage and no center stripe on West Cliff and the mixed use has become so ingrained that many websites refer to the path as a hiking/running/biking path by this point.

The lane on East Cliff is separated from cars with plastic skinny-bollard-things and there's a sidewalk, but the ped traffic spills into the lane on weekends & I've been yelled at for riding too fast (probably 10-15 MPH). It's pretty awesome on weekdays though, as there's *no land* to the South, so there are no turning cars to worry about: bikes only have to mix with cars when the *bikes* want to turn.

The local MUP here is very clear on hierarchy of right of way. Bikes yield to pedestrians who yield to horses. I'm OK with that, thems the rules, if I don't like it don't ride it. What ticks me off is the mountain bike single track course has a rule, NO Pedestrians. There's a separate hiking trail available and plenty of land to go for pedestrian walks. So naturally, some idiot joggers and people walking their dogs walk on the MTB trail. They get pissed at me because I aim right for them and force them off the trail. Too bad, thems the rules, they don't like it, don't walk it.

I had to yell at some idiot woman who was walking on my side of the bike lane coming towards me. She jumped left and then right and then left as I'm hurtling towards her. I just shouted out, "Which way you going?" She yelled right so I dodged around here. Jeez, it's not really that complicated, is it?

MANY areas? Really? Where are all these required-to-use MUPs located? And how many, if any, "serious cycle commuters" are being inconvenienced in fact (not theory) by this "requirement"?

Here in Alabama we have a mandatory sidepath law. Though I'm not a serious commuter, I doubt anyone here in Tuscaloosa is particularly inconvenienced by the law simply because there aren't many bike paths. We have a MUP along the Black Warrior River that runs for about a mile between the river and a divided highway with a 50mph speed limit, ends, and then about a mile later picks up for another mile, before ending again.

There are a couple of MUPs on the University campus, but they don't really go anywhere either.

I'd suspect that many places with mandatory sidepath laws won't spend the money to build bike paths to make the laws enforceable.

I will let you do the research, but in SC they have the sidepath law and can ticket a cyclist for not using them. Goose Creek, SC to be exact. By a "serious cycle commuter" I mean someone that is going from point A to point B and is not just out wandering around. And BTW the MUP's in Goose Creek go directly to nowhere but you are expected to use them.

Aaron:)
Sorry to say, but wrong whaoo. The only mention of bike paths/lanes states bikes cannot be on the road if a lane of path is along the road exclusively for the use of bicycles. The word exclusively in the statue allows cyclists on the road if peds can use the bike path. Ask Judge Simmons in Hilton Head.

Sorry to say, but wrong whaoo. The only mention of bike paths/lanes states bikes cannot be on the road if a lane of path is along the road exclusively for the use of bicycles. The word exclusively in the statue allows cyclists on the road if peds can use the bike path. Ask Judge Simmons in Hilton Head.

Moot point...the law has changed. It was local yokel cop and looked like he spends more time at the doughnut shop than anywhere else.

Aaron:)

My favorite is when a group of pedestrian walk/job side by side, taking the whole path.

My favorite is when a group of pedestrian walk/job side by side, taking the whole path.

Is that like cyclists taking up a whole lane on the road?

My favorite is when a group of pedestrian walk/job side by side, taking the whole path.


Is that like cyclists taking up a whole lane on the road?

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: Pedestrians on a MUP are typically in a highly relaxed and carefree state, just enjoying the day. Sure, I guess you are the unique exception on this board and you know of at least one pedestrian that walks on a MUP for 'transportational' purposes. :rolleyes:

Cyclists taking the lane on the other hand are not really something that you can draw a comparison with or as you put it "is that like". Please answer the following:
1. Do you deny that the majority of people (on bikes) that prefer the sidewalk are mistaken in their belief that the sidewalk is safer?
2. Do you accept that the majority of cyclists adhere to the legal requirement to keep right unless it is necessary for safety reasons or other reasons to not stay to the right?
3. If a cyclist is taking the lane, then there is an overwhelming likelihood that it is for safety reasons, and that safety reasons are not typically preoccupying pedestrians on a MUP?

I guess now you will say your post was meant to humorous and you forgot to add the smiley or whatever. :rolleyes:

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: Pedestrians on a MUP are typically in a highly relaxed and carefree state, just enjoying the day. Sure, I guess you are the unique exception on this board and you know of at least one pedestrian that walks on a MUP for 'transportational' purposes. :rolleyes:

Cyclists taking the lane on the other hand are not really something that you can draw a comparison with or as you put it "is that like". Please answer the following:
1. Do you deny that the majority of people (on bikes) that prefer the sidewalk are mistaken in their belief that the sidewalk is safer?
2. Do you accept that the majority of cyclists adhere to the legal requirement to keep right unless it is necessary for safety reasons or other reasons to not stay to the right?
3. If a cyclist is taking the lane, then there is an overwhelming likelihood that it is for safety reasons, and that safety reasons are not typically preoccupying pedestrians on a MUP?

I guess now you will say your post was meant to humorous and you forgot to add the smiley or whatever. :rolleyes:

1. This is not about a sidewalk, it is about a trail.
2. No, I don't accept that. They ride out there because they want to. They would whine about bike lanes being dirty even when avoiding the perfectly clean one right next to them.
3. It has nothing to do with safety reasons on the MUP, it is about right of way. The pedestrian has as much right to be where they are without moving as cyclists do on the roads.
No, my post wasn't meant to be humorous. It was meant to point out that cyclists frequently think the world revolves around them. That we can be the biggest hypocrits out there. We whine about pedestrians on trails getting in our way, the same way that car drivers whine about us on the road. The pedestrians on a trail or path have just as much right of way over cyclists as we have over cars when we are on the road. We want the car drivers to slow down and wait for us, but complain when we have to slow down and wait for pedestrians. No amount of "spin" is going to make that go away, until we as cyclists change our attitudes and start behaving on MUPs like we want car drivers to behave on roads.

1. This is not about a sidewalk, it is about a trail.
2. No, I don't accept that. They ride out there because they want to. They would whine about bike lanes being dirty even when avoiding the perfectly clean one right next to them.
3. It has nothing to do with safety reasons on the MUP, it is about right of way. The pedestrian has as much right to be where they are without moving as cyclists do on the roads.
No, my post wasn't meant to be humorous. It was meant to point out that cyclists frequently think the world revolves around them. That we can be the biggest hypocrits out there. We whine about pedestrians on trails getting in our way, the same way that car drivers whine about us on the road. The pedestrians on a trail or path have just as much right of way over cyclists as we have over cars when we are on the road. We want the car drivers to slow down and wait for us, but complain when we have to slow down and wait for pedestrians. No amount of "spin" is going to make that go away, until we as cyclists change our attitudes and start behaving on MUPs like we want car drivers to behave on roads.

"We want the car drivers to slow down and wait for us", no, we want the car drivers to slow down and not kill us - if that means waiting then so be it. I see nothing wrong with cyclists complaining about pedestrians on a MUP when nine times out of ten, the pedestrians are definitively oblivious to anything approaching from behind. If you think cyclists taking the lane are oblivious to the vehicles behind them in the same way that pedestrians on a MUP are oblivious to cyclists behind them, then I beg to differ with you.

It only takes one near miss, or reading the news for cyclists to realize how indisputably vulnerable we are on the road - we take our lives in our hands on every single ride, we are (or ought to be) intimately familiar with the risk management we engage in. Somehow I think pedestrians on a MUP are not in the same boat.

If you want to insist that cyclists taking the lane are no better than 'oblivious' pedestrians on a MUP then that is your prerogative.

Is that like cyclists taking up a whole lane on the road?

No...cyclists take up only the lane. By your analogy, Peds take up the whole road. If they'd stick to one side (preferrably the one "against traffic" so they can see me coming) and keep their dogs and kids with them I'd be fine with it. I don't mind going around them.

Please answer the following:
1. Do you deny that the majority of people (on bikes) that prefer the sidewalk are mistaken in their belief that the sidewalk is safer?
2. Do you accept that the majority of cyclists adhere to the legal requirement to keep right unless it is necessary for safety reasons or other reasons to not stay to the right?
3. If a cyclist is taking the lane, then there is an overwhelming likelihood that it is for safety reasons, and that safety reasons are not typically preoccupying pedestrians on a MUP?

I guess now you will say your post was meant to humorous and you forgot to add the smiley or whatever. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: is Right!
I don't know the answers, do you know? If so, how did you come by this knowledge of the preferences, motivations and "mistaken" beliefs of cyclists; besides using a crystal ball?

:rolleyes: is Right!
I don't know the answers, do you know? If so, how did you come by this knowledge of the preferences, motivations and "mistaken" beliefs of cyclists; besides using a crystal ball?

I came by this knowledge using a process we call observation and having a functioning brain - while there is still 'time' left you should try it. :rolleyes:

cyclists often behave as badly towards pedestrians as motorists behave towards cyclists

cyclists often behave as badly towards pedestrians as motorists behave towards cyclists

I can agree with this statement - who knows what the actual numbers are, but my guess is that statistically speaking it would be a wash, the number of abusive motorists as a percentage of total motorists, would be similar to the number of abusive cyclists as a percentage of total cyclists.

I disagree, as Dchiefransom mistakenly thinks, that a cyclist taking the lane is equivalent to the oblivious state of pedestrians on a MUP. Also, as mkadam68 has pointed out taking the lane does not block the entire road.

some cyclists may behave as badly towards pedestrians as many motorists behave towards cyclists

I fixed it for you...

cyclists often behave as badly towards pedestrians as motorists behave towards cyclists
It all comes down to an individual's attitude about the others we share resources with. If you think of others before yourself, instances of frustration and bad behavior are less likely, whether from you or about yourself and likewise with others. The clueless "ipodestrian" on a crowded MUP, the aggressive cyclist on the same MUP, the impatient or inattentive driver on the street - they all need to realize the world does not revolve around them.

... they all need to realize the world does not revolve around them.

They need to realize the world revolves around US! :)

it all comes down to an individual's attitude about the others we share resources with. If you think of others before yourself, instances of frustration and bad behavior are less likely, whether from you or about yourself and likewise with others. The clueless "ipodestrian" on a crowded mup, the aggressive cyclist on the same mup, the impatient or inattentive driver on the street - they all need to realize the world does not revolve around them.

+1000.

I came by this knowledge using a process we call observation and having a functioning brain - while there is still 'time' left you should try it. :rolleyes:

So Mr. Observant Smarty Pants, whatz da "correct" answers for your loaded rhetorical questions about the preferences, motivations and "mistaken" beliefs of various populations of cyclists?

while I'm sure some cyclists yell nasty things at pedestrians, there are significant differences from the way that motorists treat cyclists. The peds are capable of hurting the cyclist. Not so with motorist/cyclists. The peds are usually acting flaky, self absorbed and oblivious. This does happen occasionally with car/cyclist interactions, but those are pretty rare and aren't the incidents that we complain about here. I'm sure that if there is a bike only path, there are cyclists that will be nasty to any ped. Finally, there is a equality and an element of personal contact present in the interaction of cyclists and pedestrians that doesn't exist between motorists/cyclists. Driving a car makes you become much more impersonal, that's why we often call drivers "cars," as if the problem was made in a factory somewhere.

I think I said this above, but when a pedestrian endangers me, I usually think about how drivers have treated me and modify my behavior. No point to being a jerk anyway.