Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 95
  1. #51
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    a runner is NOT a pedestrian?

    a runner is now a vehicle? hmm, interesting spin on things.....
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  2. #52
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    `No, I am afraid the differences between a ped and cyclist are far fewer than the differences between a bike and a car.
    Talking about the number of differences without context is meaningless. There are differences that matter and differences that are irrelevant, depending on what the underlying question is. For example, it is true that one difference between a bike and car is that you can take the bike into a grocery store and the car not. Whether that difference matters or is irrelevant depends on the context. So, what is the context? Please be as specific as you can.

  3. #53
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951

    What do you suggest doing on a narrow road with fast traffic while moving slowly if not act like a vehicle driver? Walk? Not use the road?
    If I was asked, I would indeed advice against riding at a walking speed on a narrow lane curbed road with traffic around 90kph. I would have to advice them to take a different road. Similarly, I adjust my routes seasonally when weather and equipment changes drop my speed by a large amount relative to overtaking traffic.

    IMO, if posters on BF could somehow be held legally accountable for the advice they give, we might not see such blanket one-size-fits all recommendations here.

  4. #54
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,891
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Talking about the number of differences without context is meaningless. There are differences that matter and differences that are irrelevant, depending on what the underlying question is. For example, it is true that one difference between a bike and car is that you can take the bike into a grocery store and the car not. Whether that difference matters or is irrelevant depends on the context. So, what is the context? Please be as specific as you can.
    The context is "creating rules" based on speed. If it is the case that I can treat the exact same pedestrian differently based on whether they are running or walking, then why can't motorists treat cyclists differently based on whether the cyclist is moving at the posted speed limit or not?

    Further (just to throw this into the mix) cyclists often complain that MUPs are unsuitable, as the cyclists must slow down to ped speed to negotiate the peds. Yet those same cyclists do not feel that doing the same thing for motorists is unsuitable... where the motorists must slow down to cycling speeds.

    Sure seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me.

    Motorist: "I don't want to wait behind slow cyclists..."
    Cyclist: "You must, it is of the ROTR."

    Cyclist: "I don't want to wait for peds on the path."
    Motorist, now walking path: "you must, is is of the ROTP."
    Cyclist: "No no no... I refuse... I will protest, I demand to use the street."
    Motorist, still walking path: "But wait, you will slow me... "
    Cyclist: "So what."
    Motorist, now back to car: "We'll see." (seeks to teach cyclist another "lesson")
    Cyclist: "Some motorist just buzzed me... "

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    The context is "creating rules" based on speed. If it is the case that I can treat the exact same pedestrian differently based on whether they are running or walking, then why can't motorists treat cyclists differently based on whether the cyclist is moving at the posted speed limit or not?

    Further (just to throw this into the mix) cyclists often complain that MUPs are unsuitable, as the cyclists must slow down to ped speed to negotiate the peds. Yet those same cyclists do not feel that doing the same thing for motorists is unsuitable... where the motorists must slow down to cycling speeds.

    Sure seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me.

    Motorist: "I don't want to wait behind slow cyclists..."
    Cyclist: "You must, it is of the ROTR."

    Cyclist: "I don't want to wait for peds on the path."
    Motorist, now walking path: "you must, is is of the ROTP."
    Cyclist: "No no no... I refuse... I will protest, I demand to use the street."
    Motorist, still walking path: "But wait, you will slow me... "
    Cyclist: "So what."
    Motorist, now back to car: "We'll see." (seeks to teach cyclist another "lesson")
    Cyclist: "Some motorist just buzzed me... "
    Somewhat irrelevant. There are no rules of the road on MUPs.

  6. #56
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    There are no rules of the road on MUPs.
    Who told you that?
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,946
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Somewhat irrelevant. There are no rules of the road on MUPs.
    ORLY?

  8. #58
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,891
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Somewhat irrelevant. There are no rules of the road on MUPs.
    Oh, so we just plow down the peds, and that is OK?

    Sir may I recommend that you look at the signs posted along the path at the local MUPs... there are indeed rules.

    And even if not posted, there are generally accepted rules... which involve NOT running over the peds.

    But in the meantime, you apparently are not willing deal with the hypocrisy of the situation... and brush it off with "there are no rules... "

    Nice try.
    Last edited by genec; 06-11-07 at 03:00 PM.

  9. #59
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JRA
    Who told you that?
    I know of no rules of the MUP that are adhered to with anywhere near the consistency that drivers adhere to the rules of the road.

    The only rules I remember every seen posted are both contrary to the interest of the cyclist wishing to use the MUP for effective transportation: 8 mph speed limit and cyclists must yield to peds, period, who are not restricted from doing anything they want on the path.

    The point is if there were real rules of the MUP comparable to those of the road that made the inconvenience peds cause to cyclist on MUPs comparable to the inconvenience cyclists cause to motorists on roads, then maybe cyclists complaining about peds but insisting on their roadway rights might be fairly seen as hypocritical, but that's a big if.

  10. #60
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HUH? what kind of wacky reasoning is that? almost impenetrable in its worthlessness masquerading as valuable.


    Regradless, I'm going to act like a gorilla on the basketball court. always assuming I'll be overlooked, regardless of my methodology OR my attempts to emulate a slow moving tractor or H. Head's RV.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #61
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,891
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I know of no rules of the MUP that are adhered to with anywhere near the consistency that drivers adhere to the rules of the road.
    Yeah... especially that rule on speeding, eh? I see so many drivers "adhering" to that rule...

    Com'on, you're just trying to get off the hook of this hypocrisy... not willing to accept what you dish out.

    If it is OK to slow motorists on the streets, it is OK to slow cyclists on the MUP.

  12. #62
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Oh, so we just plow down the peds, and that is OK?

    Sir may I recommend that you look at the signs posted along the path at the local MUPs... there are indeed rules.

    And even if not posted, there are generally accepted rules... which involve NOT running over the peds.

    But in the meantime, you apparently are not willing deal with the hypocrisy of the situation... and brush it off with "there are no rules... "

    Nice try.
    Come on, Gene, don't be silly. "No rules of the road" does not mean "absolutely no rules, period, so bicyclists are allowed to plow down peds". Can't you simply disagree with what he's actually saying rather than twisting it into something absurd and then stating your disagreement with that as if it's relevant to the conversation?

    The point is that the rules of the road accomodate users of disparate speeds (stay on the right half of the road, slower traffic keeps right, pass on the left, faster traffic yields to slower traffic ahead, yield to traffic on your right, etc), thus allowing the relatively smooth and orderly simultaneous use of the road by all drivers, independent of speed.

    Whatever the "generally accepted" rules on the MUP are, they are not designed to do that. That's what JF means by there being no rules of the road on the MUP.

  13. #63
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Yeah... especially that rule on speeding, eh? I see so many drivers "adhering" to that rule...

    Com'on, you're just trying to get off the hook of this hypocrisy... not willing to accept what you dish out.

    If it is OK to slow motorists on the streets, it is OK to slow cyclists on the MUP.
    Sigh.

    I'm assuming that by "OK" in this context you mean: "reasonable to expect the relevant party to accept without complaint". If not, please correct me, but that's the meaning I'm assuming here.

    It is OK for vehicular cyclists to slow motorists on the streets per the ROTR when there is no safe and reasonable alternative because of the rules of the road that generally accomodate for all types of vehicular traffic at disparate speeds, and the resultant delay is rarely of any actual significant duration.

    It is not OK for peds to slow cyclists on MUPs per the MUP rules because the MUP rules, such as they are, are pretty useless for efficient transportational use of the MUP by cyclists when there is any significant ped usage.

    Again, if we built the MUPs with center dividing stripes, sufficient width, applied, enforced and achieved general acceptance of the ROTR on the MUP, then maybe there would be a fair comparison. But since that is not the case, simply saying, "If it is OK to slow motorists on the streets, it is OK to slow cyclists on the MUP" is an oversimplification that makes no sense.

  14. #64
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And besides, no one is really complaining about the peds on the MUPs the way motorists often complain about cyclists on roads. I don't hear anyone calling for the banning of peds from MUPs, for example. We're simply saying that because of the peds on the MUPs, and their haphazard use of them, it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to accept MUPs as a reasonable alternative to riding on the roadways, justifying banning our use of the roadway.

  15. #65
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,891
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Come on, Gene, don't be silly. "No rules of the road" does not mean "absolutely no rules, period, so bicyclists are allowed to plow down peds". Can't you simply disagree with what he's actually saying rather than twisting it into something absurd and then stating your disagreement with that as if it's relevant to the conversation?

    The point is that the rules of the road accomodate users of disparate speeds (stay on the right half of the road, slower traffic keeps right, pass on the left, faster traffic yields to slower traffic ahead, yield to traffic on your right, etc), thus allowing the relatively smooth and orderly simultaneous use of the road by all drivers, independent of speed.

    Whatever the "generally accepted" rules on the MUP are, they are not designed to do that. That's what JF means by there being no rules of the road on the MUP.
    The "generally accepted rules" are very much like your "general Rules of the Road." People know the basics... That John Forester choses to brush them away with a wave of his hand just shows the level of hyprocrisy that some vehicular cyclists will maintain to endorse their system.

    I suppose you have never seen signs posted along any local MUPs?

    Anything that looks like this:

    John is quite quick to tell us that "paths don't work" because cyclists cannot go full speed upon them, but he is just as quick to dismiss the desire of motorists to go "full speed" on city streets.

    Motorists don't want to be slowed down any more than cyclists... yet it is somehow OK for slow cyclists to delay a motorist, but a cyclist cannot be delayed by a pedestrian.

    I just cannot wrap my head around that hypocrisy.

  16. #66
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,891
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    And besides, no one is really complaining about the peds on the MUPs the way motorists often complain about cyclists on roads. I don't hear anyone calling for the banning of peds from MUPs, for example. We're simply saying that because of the peds on the MUPs, and their haphazard use of them, it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to accept MUPs as a reasonable alternative to riding on the roadways, justifying banning our use of the roadway.
    John doesn't consider paths an acceptable transportion component as they may not allow cyclists to operate at full speed, they may not have been built using "transportation dollars," and they are not under the same jurisdiction as the streets. (may be policed by rangers, vice city police.)

  17. #67
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    The "generally accepted rules" are very much like your "general Rules of the Road." People know the basics... That John Forester choses to brush them away with a wave of his hand just shows the level of hyprocrisy that some vehicular cyclists will maintain to endorse their system.

    I suppose you have never seen signs posted along any local MUPs?

    Anything that looks like this:

    John is quite quick to tell us that "paths don't work" because cyclists cannot go full speed upon them, but he is just as quick to dismiss the desire of motorists to go "full speed" on city streets.

    Motorists don't want to be slowed down any more than cyclists... yet it is somehow OK for slow cyclists to delay a motorist, but a cyclist cannot be delayed by a pedestrian.

    I just cannot wrap my head around that hypocrisy.
    Gene, did you skip breakfast today or something? Mountain bikes, horses and hikers? Those are the user-type yielding rules for off-road trails - like the one going through Penasquitos preserve!

    In any case, those rules, such as they are, and the similar ones for MUPs (bikes yield to peds, period) are a far cry from the rules of the road and all that they enable in terms of safe and efficient shared usage.

    "There are no rules of the road on MUPs." -John Forester

  18. #68
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    John doesn't consider paths an acceptable transportion component as they may not allow cyclists to operate at full speed, they may not have been built using "transportation dollars," and they are not under the same jurisdiction as the streets. (may be policed by rangers, vice city police.)
    Right, not to mention that they are indistinguishable from dirt trails in terms of maintenance legal liability.

    The point of all that is the existance of an MUP is not a valid reason to ban cyclists from the roadway alternative. Do you agree?

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    The "generally accepted rules" are very much like your "general Rules of the Road." People know the basics... That John Forester choses to brush them away with a wave of his hand just shows the level of hyprocrisy that some vehicular cyclists will maintain to endorse their system.

    I suppose you have never seen signs posted along any local MUPs?

    Anything that looks like this:

    John is quite quick to tell us that "paths don't work" because cyclists cannot go full speed upon them, but he is just as quick to dismiss the desire of motorists to go "full speed" on city streets.

    Motorists don't want to be slowed down any more than cyclists... yet it is somehow OK for slow cyclists to delay a motorist, but a cyclist cannot be delayed by a pedestrian.

    I just cannot wrap my head around that hypocrisy.

    Hypocrisy? No driver should unnecessarily delay any other driver, and the rules of the road are set up to adjudicate between the two parties in a reasonably fair way. On many normal streets the cyclist can safely travel as fast as his legs will propel him. However, on most MUPs that attract as much traffic as would justify their cost, that traffic operating in a chaotic manner prevents the cyclist from traveling at much more than walking pace. Whatever is the right or wrong of the matter, those are the facts. It is therefore quite reasonable for a cyclist to decide to ride on a road instead of on a path on the basis of attainable safe speed.

  20. #70
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    "There are no rules of the road on MUPs." -John Forester
    Helmet Head quoting John Forester nonsense. Classic! You guys crack me up. You should be on the stage.

    You've outdone yourself, Helmet Head. You're the guy who fantazies that there are some universal rules of the road that you claim justify certain exceptions to the actual rules of the road. You believe in the mythical universal rules of the road but you don't believe there are rules of the road for MUPs.

    What a joke!
    Last edited by JRA; 06-11-07 at 04:53 PM.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JRA
    Helmet Head quoting John Forester nonsense. Classic! You guys crack me up. You should be on the stage.

    You've outdone yourself, Helmet Head. You're the guy who fantazies that there are some universal rules of the road that you claim justify certain exceptions to the actual rules of the road. You believe in the mythical universal rules of the road but you don't believe there are rules of the road for MUPs.

    What a joke!
    Absolute idiocy instead of thinking that this is a joke. When, in vehicular cycling, we refer to the rules of the road we mean the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Anybody who has not understood that is probably missing more than one shingle. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles apply only to operation on roadways and associated areas, such as some parking lots. While there are rather primitive rules regarding operation on MUPs, these are not the rules of the road. Besides, how often have you seen the traffic on a well-occupied MUP operating according to the rules of the road?

  22. #72
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Hypocrisy? No driver should unnecessarily delay any other driver, and the rules of the road are set up to adjudicate between the two parties in a reasonably fair way...
    Ajudicate? Hopefully, it won't come to that but incidents that occur on MUPs can be adjudicated, too.

    That was a nice misuse of a two-bit word, though. You get credit for that.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  23. #73
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Absolute idiocy
    I agree. Your claim that there are no rules of the road for MUPs is pure idiocy. But let's see how you can try to spin it:

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    When, in vehicular cycling, we refer to the rules of the road we mean the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Anybody who has not understood that is probably missing more than one shingle. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles apply only to operation on roadways and associated areas, such as some parking lots. While there are rather primitive rules regarding operation on MUPs, these are not the rules of the road. Besides, how often have you seen the traffic on a well-occupied MUP operating according to the rules of the road?
    Good one! You are the spin-meister, no doubt about it.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  24. #74
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,891
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Besides, how often have you seen the traffic on a well-occupied MUP operating according to the rules of the road?
    Daily.

    The slower traffic keeps to the right. Cyclists split the path and maintain directional flow in either direction. Cyclists tend to ride quite fast. (I know I have done 16.2 MPH average for a 20 mile ride on this MUP... verified by GPS and bike computer.)

    As far as well occupied... I am not sure what qualifies as "well occupied..."

    Occasionally a dog doesn't follow the rules... but then they do that in streets too.

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
    Horse pucky.

    Example:
    More horse pucky.

    Safe multiple use of this and other multiple use trails requires everyone's cooperation. Each trail user is asked to exercise common courtesy. BICYCLES YIELD to horses and hikers. HIKERS YIELD to horses. Stay to the right of the trail except when passing. NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES are permitted on the trail, wheelchairs excepted.

    RESPONSIBLE TRAIL-USE RULES

    Violations of any of the following may result in citation:

    ALL TRAIL USERS:
    * Be safe, considerate and aware of your impact on the trail and other trail users.
    * For everyone's safety, keep to the right. Proceed single file around blind curves.
    * For your safety, headphones are not advised.
    * Safety helmets are required by law for bicyclists under age 18, and are strongly recommended for all bicyclists and equestrians.
    * Dogs must be on leash where posted, and under full verbal control elsewhere. Please clean up after your dog.

    BICYCLES:
    * Bicycles are not permitted, either walked, ridden or carried, on trails marked "No Bicycles."
    * Bicycles shall not be ridden at an unsafe speed, or greater than the posted speed limit. Be aware of how you are perceived by other trail users.
    * Bicycles always yield to pedestrians. Before passing, SLOW DOWN, ring bell and/or establish verbal contact.
    * When approaching equestrians, call out and/or ring bell and STOP, whether you are seen or not. Ask for instructions on how to pass safely.
    * On blind turns, SLOW DOWN, call out and/or ring bell and ride single file.

    PEDESTRIANS:
    * Keep to the right when approached by others.
    * Always yield to equestrians.
    * Look behind and to both sides before changing course.

    EQUESTRIANS:
    * Keep your horse to the right or where safe when encountering other trail users.
    * Communicate. Let other trail users know how to pass your horse safely.
    * Please clean up after your horse on paved trails.

    p.s. The speed limit is 15mph.
    Pete's description applies even more strongly to his own contribution.

    The whole argument is just plain silly. Certainly there are laws regarding operation on MUPs, just as there are laws that apply when in a park, but these are not the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, nothing like them. However, these rules do illustrate the problems with MUP traffic that we have been discussing. Note that dogs are expected, some running free and some on leashes. A dog under one's front wheel, whether free-running or on a leash, is a nasty mess for a cyclist. Note that cyclists passing (we do not know whether this means overtaking only, or both overtaking or meeting) pedestrians have to negotiate their passing movement according to the command: "SLOW DOWN, ring bell and/or establish verbal contact". Why so? Because it is only to be expected that pedestrians will move about largely at random, regardless of the posted rules.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •