https://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...24bikepth.html

As an avid jogger and cyclist, I am troubled that some bicyclists on Fiesta Island are telling joggers to get off the road, just as some motorists give bicyclists the same message on other roads. It can be as difficult or dangerous to run on a sloping shoulder or in loose sand as it is to ride on these surfaces. Although I rarely visit Fiesta Island, this article hits close to home, because Stephan Vance is a friend and Tamara Lave once interviewed my son as a witness for one of her cases. I do have similar jogger-cyclist conflicts sometimes on Coast Highway 101, with 3-abreast joggers taking up the entire bike lane.

My partial solution is for the peleton of bicyclists to assume a longer, narrower (and actually more aerodynamic) formation, to share the road with the joggers.

That's scary. In my humble opinion a lot of the problem is that the runners are told to run on the left side. We have multi-use here, the W&OD trail, and everyone uses the right side, runners, walkers, cyclists, bladers, and I don't see much in the way of dangerous passing. We're all taught to pass on the left...

That makes sense to me, twahl, but it runs counter to most other paths I have seen. For example, on the relatively narrow two-way path along the shore of Lake Tahoe, signs admonish users to walk on the left and to bike on the right. Running with, rather than against, the flow of cyclists might have given Tamara Lave slightly more time to be seen, but it also would have given her less time to react and try to jump off the road.

Cyclists need to keep an assured clear distance like all other traffic. We also need to avoid yelling insults at other people legally using the road. But I find it annoying that when we use multi-use paths, we're told to slow down or get on the road. Then, when we use the road, we're still told to slow down. 30-35 mph is not that fast of a speed for traffic (which cyclists are).

If the runners want the cyclists to slow down, maybe the runners should try confining their speed to 4 mph. That's roughly equivalent of limiting cyclists to 15 or 20 mph.

On a serious note, John E is right, if more people (joggers & cyclists) stayed single-file, there would be a lot fewer conflicts.

Yeah there's the visibility issue, and reaction, but then there's the instinct to pass left. I dunno, I don't have extensive experience or anything, but I haven't seen any problems with the trails here. We do have an added advantage of having a fine gravel tred path that runs alongside the paved trail, and many of the runners seem to prefer that to pavement. I'm sure that helps some.

The trouble with making peds and runners going against the traffic is that it implies the ped is bobliged to get out of the way of the traffic. I think it safer and less ambiguous if the obligation is on the faster vehicle to is obliged to avoid the slower.

Peds, even ones that could be less erratic and give more space, should always be given safe passing clearance and the cyclist should stop (and be prepared to early) if there is not.

If a cyclist needs open space for continuous fast riding, then a multiuse path is not for them. Alternately a cyclist can understand the need for slowing, stopping and caution around peds. If anything the slowing/stopping and resulting need for getting back up to speed will give a better workout

There are multiuse paths around where I live and I would never consider cycling for a workout on them.

Al

The complicating factor here is that asphalt path around Fiesta Island is actually a public one-way street without sidewalks or bike lanes. Yes, it is open to motor vehicles as well as to bicycles, but very people choose to drive on it. I miswrote when I entitled this thread "multiuse trail dangers," although most of the comments in this thread do apply to multiuse trails, in general.

https://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...&addtohistory=

This is the very nub of the issue. Shared paths are totally inappropriate for cycling any faster than 20km/h. Conflicts like this on MUP's are nothing new, in fact, they've been known to turn quite violent on many of the paths around here, which is one of the reasons I avoid them.

If these things are going to work (and I'm yet to see any evidence of this), there need to be some ground rules laid down, and they need to be enforced. Paint a line down the middle of the path, ask the peds to stay on one side of that line, and put the emphasis on the passing cyclists to avoid them -- and give the police the power to remove anyone who doesn't comply from the path. Then they might serve some purpose.

Sometimes you just have to be aware and take into account the road conditions regardless of whether it's a public road, closed road, MUP, track, trail, park, whatever. Just because it's labelled one thing does not obviate you from making sure that conditions are safe for the speeds you're travelling. This includes watching for congestion points, other traffic, pedestrians, etc. Sometimes high speed cycling in congested areas is like attempting to run sprints in a shopping mall during the last weekend before Christmas.

I am not familiar with the road in San Diego but the rule I adopt around here is that MUP's are not for serious riding. There are too many pedestrians, roller bladers, and small children on the path for that.

Ultimately the paths in exsistance are being heavily used and therefore there is an argument for more bike paths and multi-use paths to be put in place in that area. Could the local government and DOT possibly be petitioned by neighboorhoods and user-groups to provide more adequate transportation options in their next 10 year plan?


It takes real persistance to see something like this through though.

Here in Central Florida, all of our bike trails have signs and everyone uses the right side of the trail. Trails are far too narrow for pedestrians to walk facing vehicles (bicycles) as pedestrians are supposed to do on the roads.

Are you refering to the Orange Blossam Trail Pat? I have wanted to try that one soon but have heard the north end of it goes through some pretty "questionable" neighborhoods. What can you say about it?

I think y'all are missing the point by discussing MUP's. I read the article to say the accident happened on a road, not a path. The caption on the photo refers to a "shared road." The article says cyclists are there because there's little traffic. This appears to have been a road, which is exactly the place cyclists should be able to go fast.

And my point was that just because they're on a road does not necessarily mean they should be going fast. If the road is congested then they need to adjust their speed for safety.

And I did start off my initial post with, "Cyclists need to keep an assured clear distance like all other traffic. We also need to avoid yelling insults at other people legally using the road." But there is a difference between safety and annoyance. Many pedestrians are annoyed by "fast" moving cyclists (by "fast," they generally mean >10 mph) when there is no real safety issue. Pedestrians who don't want to be near "fast-moving" cyclists have near infinite options of places where cyclists are banned (sidewalks, parks, walking paths, etc.).

In this case, the pedestrians obviously have concerns that are not completely unfounded.

How was this runner hit from behind if he was following the rules? On the road, runners and other pedestrians are supposed to go against traffic. Did the cyclist cross the center line and rear-end him? If this had been a cyclist who got in an accident while riding on the wrong side of the road, we’d all say the cyclist was an idiot and was at fault. (Remember Ringo?) Well, here the pedestrian appears to have been on the wrong side of the road.

I also like this line, "The runners believe the cyclists ride too fast, too close to the side of the road...." Drivers tell us we go too slow and stay too far from the side of the road.

I don't think either side has the moral high ground in this incident. (mapquest link to the road/island in question)

The area in question is a road, which as noted would require joggers to run on the opposite side against traffic. On the other hand cyclists shouldn't be travelling at a rate of speed where they are unable to react to conditions on the road ahead of them. If you look at the island, you can see why there is an attraction for cyclists. Large swaths of open road with few turns and no grade.

It seems that both the joggers and cyclists want to take advantage of these roads because they are devoid of traffic. Part of the problem is that this is a park, which may lead joggers to asssume that the roads are 'paths' when they are not.

Perhaps it wold be wise to post signs for joggers to remind them to run against traffic. With only one bridge onto the island, people wouldn't be able to miss a large sign on the way in. Then perhaps post speed limits for sections of road where visibility is reduced. People should be able to get along, it looks like a great place to run/ride.

Regards,

Savant

Maybe the solution would be to ban cars, then to divide the road into areas for cyclists and for joggers.

Lave's attitude of not wanting to sue the cyclist who hit her is commendable; she treated him like a brother athlete.

But that doesn't change the basic fact that cyclists are responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles on public roadways, just like motorists. The fact that these cyclists are training hard places an even greater burden on them to be cautious.

Even joggers can adopt an aggressive attitude. One day I was walking to a grocery store downtown when a jogger coming the opposite direction came straight for me. There was nowhere else for him to go, since the sidewalk was blocked with other people. I thought he'd slide around me somehow. I was suprised and angered when he slammed into me and purposely pushed me aside with his shoulder. On another occasion, a group of high-school runners did exactly the same thing to me as I walked on the sidewalk.

I don't agree that joggers running with traffic are any more likely to be hit by cyclists than those who run against traffic. The space they take up is the same. What's more likely to happen is that the jogger will see the cyclists coming and leave the roadway out of sheer intimidation.

It appears to be a shared "road" in name only. The reality is probably more like a multi-use path than any road I've ever ridden.

You are right, the cyclist should have been on the lookout for wrong-way joggers. But that doesn't change the fact that the "victim" was a wrong-way jogger under current law.

Maybe what happened is that both the cyclist and the jogger realized that they both screwed up, and both were adult enough to take their licks and move on. The jogger may not want to sue because she knows she would be as successful as Ringo would have been. I agree that cyclists are responsible for safely operating their bicycles, but Ringo tried to make the same argument about drivers when his wife was hit riding the wrong way.



Note: I'm basing my argument on the assumption that there are no special rules for pedestians on this road. If you are familiar with this road and I am wrong, please correct me.

Note: I edited out the word "idiot" as applied to the jogger.

The point of this article is that cyclists are riding dangerously fast without proper care for joggers, regardless of which way the joggers are travelling.

If you choose to call a public defender and experienced marathon runner an "idiot," perhaps you are using the wrong measuring stick.