Do bicyclists have the right to...?
08-29-18, 10:49 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 238 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Do bicyclists have the right to...?
This is in partial response to another recent thread but instead of hijacking it, figured it may be better off as another post.
Granted, the measure taken by the rider in the first video was a bit extreme (honking at everybody who crossed him with a air horn) but a second video showed a gentleman casually singing "Bike lane! You're in the bike lane!" and ringing his bell while weaving through the New Year's crowd. While it was rather tastefully well done on his part I wonder if maybe he would have been just better walking (maybe not, just sayin; I know it can be rather difficult to walk a bike through heavy traffic).
Which got me thinking, is it always the case that cyclists have the right to the bike lane? When driving a car, you are supposed to yield to pedestrians regardless of whether a cross signal is in effect or not, whether the pedestrian is jay walking or whatever. Obviously the police would not look kindly upon the pedestrian if the pedestrian was casually strolling through a highway or busy road and apt to cause harm to themself or cause traffic incidents but for the most part the pedestrian has the right of way.
I used to race cars once upon a time, time trial events where there were multiple classes/cars on the course at the same time. One of the simple rules was if there was an accident, it was always the faster guys fault regardless of what the slower guy was doing and the driver doing the overtaking was ejected from the course for the day.
I read posts on here all the time about "idiot pedestrians" whether in the bike lane or on the MUP. I get it. I commute on an almost daily basis and have to deal with pedestrians all the time, some of who ARE idiots but that doesn't defeat the fact that I should be yielding to them at all times. It can be annoying, aggravating and, admittedly, overwhelming so that it is ignored at times.
How do you feel about the issue? Is the pedstrian or cyclists that should be yielding in the bike lane? MUPs? Is it the responsibility of the faster to yield to the slower or vice versa?
Granted, the measure taken by the rider in the first video was a bit extreme (honking at everybody who crossed him with a air horn) but a second video showed a gentleman casually singing "Bike lane! You're in the bike lane!" and ringing his bell while weaving through the New Year's crowd. While it was rather tastefully well done on his part I wonder if maybe he would have been just better walking (maybe not, just sayin; I know it can be rather difficult to walk a bike through heavy traffic).
Which got me thinking, is it always the case that cyclists have the right to the bike lane? When driving a car, you are supposed to yield to pedestrians regardless of whether a cross signal is in effect or not, whether the pedestrian is jay walking or whatever. Obviously the police would not look kindly upon the pedestrian if the pedestrian was casually strolling through a highway or busy road and apt to cause harm to themself or cause traffic incidents but for the most part the pedestrian has the right of way.
I used to race cars once upon a time, time trial events where there were multiple classes/cars on the course at the same time. One of the simple rules was if there was an accident, it was always the faster guys fault regardless of what the slower guy was doing and the driver doing the overtaking was ejected from the course for the day.
I read posts on here all the time about "idiot pedestrians" whether in the bike lane or on the MUP. I get it. I commute on an almost daily basis and have to deal with pedestrians all the time, some of who ARE idiots but that doesn't defeat the fact that I should be yielding to them at all times. It can be annoying, aggravating and, admittedly, overwhelming so that it is ignored at times.
How do you feel about the issue? Is the pedstrian or cyclists that should be yielding in the bike lane? MUPs? Is it the responsibility of the faster to yield to the slower or vice versa?
08-29-18, 11:00 PM
#2
Non omnino gravis
I think that 100% bikes should have control of the bike lane. It's got bikes painted on it every 200 feet, and signs all over the place that say BIKE LANE. Pedestrians are also supposed to walk opposing traffic. But once they see a bike lane to walk in, they're walking with traffic 95% of the time, so I have to go out into the traffic flow to get around them. Like the morons that leisurely walk up the dead-center middle of the aisle in the parking lot. It's not a walking lot. It's for cars. Get the hell out of the way. Same for the bike lane. It's not the walking lane. Luckily, I live in the depths of SoCal urban sprawl, and not a big city. If I were to face the conditions present in the two aforementioned videos, I'd probably give up trying to ride the bike.
__________________
08-30-18, 12:05 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times
in
221 Posts
Yield is one thing, evasive action is another.
I’d be ”happy” to yield to a pedestrian crossing in an orderly fashion, or temporarily using the bike lane to pass an obstacle. But I have a limited patience for mindless weaving and simply standing in the way. It IS the BIKE LANE after all.
I don’t do Strava, haven’t chased a personal best on my commute in years.
But I do have a fair distance to cover, and I prefer to do it with some efficiency.
Repeatedly having to brake due to the actions of those totally oblivious to the existence of the bike lane will eventually start to annoy me.
To draw a parallel to that racing comparison, I bet there’s some clause along the lines of ”as long as the car being overtaken is acting predictably.”
If the guy ahead suddenly decides to see if he’s tracking straight under hard braking, or tries to recreate that knocking he thought he heard from the steering linkage last weekend w/o checking if the rear is clear, he might very well be the one asked to leave the track.
Rules at sea also place the bulk of responsibility on the manouvering vessel, but there’s a sub-clause about the vessel being overtaken is expected to ”maintain course and speed” i.e. behaving predictably.
Several years ago there was an article about a Dutch town that had revised the inner city traffic rules. Basically made the capacity for injury proportional to responsibility. Trucks gave way to cars and everything smaller, cars to bicycles and everything smaller, bicycles to pedestrians.
The journalist thought he’d spotted something and said:”but that leaves people free to do as they please when they face a (bigger) vehicle. Doesn’t that simply lead to chaos?”
And the Mayor ( or whichever town official it was) replied:”oh, no. All road users are still required to behave sensibly”.
I’d be ”happy” to yield to a pedestrian crossing in an orderly fashion, or temporarily using the bike lane to pass an obstacle. But I have a limited patience for mindless weaving and simply standing in the way. It IS the BIKE LANE after all.
I don’t do Strava, haven’t chased a personal best on my commute in years.
But I do have a fair distance to cover, and I prefer to do it with some efficiency.
Repeatedly having to brake due to the actions of those totally oblivious to the existence of the bike lane will eventually start to annoy me.
To draw a parallel to that racing comparison, I bet there’s some clause along the lines of ”as long as the car being overtaken is acting predictably.”
If the guy ahead suddenly decides to see if he’s tracking straight under hard braking, or tries to recreate that knocking he thought he heard from the steering linkage last weekend w/o checking if the rear is clear, he might very well be the one asked to leave the track.
Rules at sea also place the bulk of responsibility on the manouvering vessel, but there’s a sub-clause about the vessel being overtaken is expected to ”maintain course and speed” i.e. behaving predictably.
Several years ago there was an article about a Dutch town that had revised the inner city traffic rules. Basically made the capacity for injury proportional to responsibility. Trucks gave way to cars and everything smaller, cars to bicycles and everything smaller, bicycles to pedestrians.
The journalist thought he’d spotted something and said:”but that leaves people free to do as they please when they face a (bigger) vehicle. Doesn’t that simply lead to chaos?”
And the Mayor ( or whichever town official it was) replied:”oh, no. All road users are still required to behave sensibly”.
08-30-18, 12:09 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,217
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 121 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4351 Post(s)
Liked 3,415 Times
in
2,212 Posts
Read the statutes in your city and state. They vary. What we say here will not hold up in court. Hopefully, what is written into law does.
Ben
Ben
08-30-18, 12:44 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,884
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX 2x11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Liked 532 Times
in
403 Posts
As you point out, the laws basically (generally) clearly state that slower-moving, more at-risk occupants of a lane must be yielded to. No matter whether some other law or ordinance stipulates that such people should find another means of getting from point A to B. (As with signage on highways stating 'mopeds, skateboards, pedestrians, etc' are not allowed on the highway.) Same on the "high seas" as well. Slower-moving boats are not expected to magically jet aside in order to make way for faster, overtaking craft.
IMO, it's simply bad form to forcibly eject people out of a path for their daring to be an occupant of that path. Ask, sure, via bells or horns or vocals. But nowhere near to the degree Mr. Horn (from the other thread) did. In short, just as there's no absolute right to a lane, there's also no right to effectively assault others along the way ... no matter what one things of their occupancy of the lane.
08-30-18, 03:24 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,020
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7382 Post(s)
Liked 3,012 Times
in
1,610 Posts
A driver/rider is supposed to yield in that it is Not permissible to ram a pedestrians. The pedestrian does not have a Legal 'right of way" as other safety laws apply---pedestrians cannot walk wherever they want and say "Car's have to stop of go around." Legally a driver cannot hit a pedestrian, Even if the pedestrian is breaking the law.
I am sure you could get pedestrians ticketed Eventually, after hours of footage of bad behavior ... but I am not sure most police forces would want to issue a ticket in most cases ---but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
08-30-18, 03:38 AM
#7
Bike don't lie
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kalamazoo MI
Posts: 21,023
Bikes: Fuji SL2.1 Carbon Di2 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 4 Trek Checkpoint ALR gravel Viscount Aerospace Pro Colnago Classic Rabobank Schwinn Waterford PMount
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2946 Post(s)
Liked 5,669 Times
in
3,317 Posts
Thread moved from General Cycling to A+S.
08-30-18, 04:04 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Middelbury, Vermont
Posts: 1,105
Bikes: Giant Escape 1
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
2 Posts
I appreciated the comment that the legal requirements may vary. But what is the safe and courteous thing to do? 1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong." 2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not. 3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
08-30-18, 04:39 AM
#9
Senior Member
I'd say there are no absolutes here. It obviously isn't acceptable to plough into a bunch of pedestrians no matter what the right of way is. If someone steps into the path of a speeding cyclist without looking then I'd say the pedestrian is at fault.
08-30-18, 05:46 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
This is in partial response to another recent thread but instead of hijacking it, figured it may be better off as another post.
Granted, the measure taken by the rider in the first video was a bit extreme (honking at everybody who crossed him with a air horn) but a second video showed a gentleman casually singing "Bike lane! You're in the bike lane!" and ringing his bell while weaving through the New Year's crowd. While it was rather tastefully well done on his part I wonder if maybe he would have been just better walking (maybe not, just sayin; I know it can be rather difficult to walk a bike through heavy traffic).
Which got me thinking, is it always the case that cyclists have the right to the bike lane...
I read posts on here all the time about "idiot pedestrians" whether in the bike lane or on the MUP. I get it. I commute on an almost daily basis and have to deal with pedestrians all the time, some of who ARE idiots but that doesn't defeat the fact that I should be yielding to them at all times. It can be annoying, aggravating and, admittedly, overwhelming so that it is ignored at times.
How do you feel about the issue? Is the pedstrian or cyclists that should be yielding in the bike lane? MUPs? Is it the responsibility of the faster to yield to the slower or vice versa?
Granted, the measure taken by the rider in the first video was a bit extreme (honking at everybody who crossed him with a air horn) but a second video showed a gentleman casually singing "Bike lane! You're in the bike lane!" and ringing his bell while weaving through the New Year's crowd. While it was rather tastefully well done on his part I wonder if maybe he would have been just better walking (maybe not, just sayin; I know it can be rather difficult to walk a bike through heavy traffic).
Which got me thinking, is it always the case that cyclists have the right to the bike lane...
I read posts on here all the time about "idiot pedestrians" whether in the bike lane or on the MUP. I get it. I commute on an almost daily basis and have to deal with pedestrians all the time, some of who ARE idiots but that doesn't defeat the fact that I should be yielding to them at all times. It can be annoying, aggravating and, admittedly, overwhelming so that it is ignored at times.
How do you feel about the issue? Is the pedstrian or cyclists that should be yielding in the bike lane? MUPs? Is it the responsibility of the faster to yield to the slower or vice versa?
In a word: no.
As you point out, the laws basically (generally) clearly state that slower-moving, more at-risk occupants of a lane must be yielded to. No matter whether some other law or ordinance stipulates that such people should find another means of getting from point A to B. (As with signage on highways stating 'mopeds, skateboards, pedestrians, etc' are not allowed on the highway.)
Same on the "high seas" as well. Slower-moving boats are not expected to magically jet aside in order to make way for faster, overtaking craft.
IMO, it's simply bad form to forcibly eject people out of a path for their daring to be an occupant of that path. Ask, sure, via bells or horns or vocals. But nowhere near to the degree Mr. Horn (from the other thread) did. In short, just as there's no absolute right to a lane, there's also no right to effectively assault others along the way ... no matter what one [thinks] of their occupancy of the lane.
As you point out, the laws basically (generally) clearly state that slower-moving, more at-risk occupants of a lane must be yielded to. No matter whether some other law or ordinance stipulates that such people should find another means of getting from point A to B. (As with signage on highways stating 'mopeds, skateboards, pedestrians, etc' are not allowed on the highway.)
Same on the "high seas" as well. Slower-moving boats are not expected to magically jet aside in order to make way for faster, overtaking craft.
IMO, it's simply bad form to forcibly eject people out of a path for their daring to be an occupant of that path. Ask, sure, via bells or horns or vocals. But nowhere near to the degree Mr. Horn (from the other thread) did. In short, just as there's no absolute right to a lane, there's also no right to effectively assault others along the way ... no matter what one [thinks] of their occupancy of the lane.
…A driver/rider is supposed to yield in that it is Not permissible to ram a pedestrians…Even if the pedestrian is breaking the law….
…but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
…but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
I appreciated the comment that the legal requirements may vary. But what is the safe and courteous thing to do?
1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong."
2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not.
3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong."
2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not.
3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
…My own thought is that a MUP [even if called a bikepath] is not so much a commuter route, or training venue, but a pastoral park, where people can enjoy themselves without too many worries, and needn’t be always vigilant, as is a cyclist on the Road…
My own Golden Rule of Cycling is “Do unto the Pedestrians, as you would have the Cagers do unto you.”
My own Golden Rule of Cycling is “Do unto the Pedestrians, as you would have the Cagers do unto you.”
08-30-18, 05:47 AM
#11
Senior Member
I think the question requires context and clarification. As so ek e pointed out, the law changes from country to country try and from state to state. For example, to my surprise, Ontario has very car centric laws. For instance, it is pedestrians that have to yield to cars at an intersection if there is no crosswalk painted on the floor. Canadian geese get more respect from Ontario drivers than pedestrians and cyclists.
My view in general is that:
- Safety should be prioritized over speed
- Cars should yield to cyclists, and cyclists should yield to pedestrians on most normal situations
- If another road user is doing something wrong, you should still be courteous and avoid intimidation, rudeness, trying to teach them a lesson, or other forms of road rage
- Most people will break some rules sometimes and inconvenience others, and we should accept this fact and share the urban spaces
I think the guy in the video is an *******. He is not different than drivers that do punishment passes or yell at cyclists to “getuff the road” or “pay road tax”. The only thing his stupid video accomplished is for the anti-cycling lobby in the UK to show that cyclists are
********.
My view in general is that:
- Safety should be prioritized over speed
- Cars should yield to cyclists, and cyclists should yield to pedestrians on most normal situations
- If another road user is doing something wrong, you should still be courteous and avoid intimidation, rudeness, trying to teach them a lesson, or other forms of road rage
- Most people will break some rules sometimes and inconvenience others, and we should accept this fact and share the urban spaces
I think the guy in the video is an *******. He is not different than drivers that do punishment passes or yell at cyclists to “getuff the road” or “pay road tax”. The only thing his stupid video accomplished is for the anti-cycling lobby in the UK to show that cyclists are
********.
08-30-18, 07:58 AM
#12
Senior Member
These situations are created because parking lots and shopping centers are designed for the car, not for pedestrians. In many cases, there just isn't any clear path in them designed for pedestrians to get a safe direct route from the bus stop to the doors and entrances.
08-30-18, 07:58 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,020
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7382 Post(s)
Liked 3,012 Times
in
1,610 Posts
I come across pedestrians in bike lanes from time to time--I am sure we all do (Let it be clear "BIKE LANE" and not "MUP.") Basically, they do not belong there. The last time I came across a couple, there was a sidewalk on the other side of the street--it is one thing if it is a "share the road" situation, but .....whatever.
That's why I carry a machete.
That's why I carry a machete.
08-30-18, 08:31 AM
#14
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,767
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2082 Post(s)
Liked 1,578 Times
in
788 Posts
I have never had an issue doing that, and I don't suffer undue delays. On more crowded paths, I do see how it could be an issue. I have had some people do some really dumb stuff right in front of me. Fortunately because I had slowed considerably and had an escape route planned, it worked out fine. I have seen cyclists slam into pedestrians when the pedestrians did something totally idiotic. sure, we have a duty to yield, but they have a duty to give us a chance to yield.
08-30-18, 08:55 AM
#15
Non omnino gravis
Further, there's the fact that-- at least around here-- where there's a bike lane, there will be a sidewalk, and why would people want to walk down next to the traffic flow when they can stay up on the sidewalk? Runners will occasionally be in the bike lane, running against traffic like they're supposed to, but will move out of the way when they see a bike coming.
We have virtually no separated bike lanes in the Inland Empire. I mean, if there are any non-MUP/MUT bike lanes with traffic separators, I don't know where they are.
We have virtually no separated bike lanes in the Inland Empire. I mean, if there are any non-MUP/MUT bike lanes with traffic separators, I don't know where they are.
__________________
08-30-18, 10:07 AM
#16
DeadheadDave
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 94
Bikes: 1 Trek road bike, 1 Cannondale
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I appreciated the comment that the legal requirements may vary. But what is the safe and courteous thing to do? 1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong." 2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not. 3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
08-30-18, 11:11 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
I posted earlier on this thread:
IMO the vast majority of pedestrians on a MUP / Bikepath are more likely motorists rather than cyclists, and do not share the opinion that they do not belong on the Path. @irwin7638 posted this seemingly valid viewpoint of the ”average” American toward cyclists:
So I don’t expect pedestrians to show the same respect to cyclists, as we have to show toward cars i.e. “share the road.” Especially since those users likely paid more to construct the Path as their refuge from driving.
So why should cyclists, likely the minority of users, take over these public spaces?
…My own thought is that a MUP [even if called a bikepath] is not so much a commuter route, or training venue, but a pastoral park, where people can enjoy themselves without too many worries, and needn’t be always vigilant, as is a cyclist on the Road…
My own Golden Rule of Cycling is “Do unto the Pedestrians, as you would have the Cagers do unto you.”
My own Golden Rule of Cycling is “Do unto the Pedestrians, as you would have the Cagers do unto you.”
I come across pedestrians in bike lanes from time to time--I am sure we all do (Let it be clear "BIKE LANE" and not "MUP.") Basically, they do not belong there. The last time I came across a couple, there was a sidewalk on the other side of the street--it is one thing if it is a "share the road" situation, but .....whatever.
That's why I carry a machete.
That's why I carry a machete.
I've found that most Americans think of bikes in three ways: children's toys, exotic toys for fitness fanatics and transportation of last resort for the impoverished and disadvantaged.
It's socially acceptable for an adult to dress up like a circus acrobat with friends once a week, run around in circles as quickly as possible with no other purpose or destination, but to ride a bike somewhere for a purpose implies some sort of need and is looked upon as an act of desperation.
It's socially acceptable for an adult to dress up like a circus acrobat with friends once a week, run around in circles as quickly as possible with no other purpose or destination, but to ride a bike somewhere for a purpose implies some sort of need and is looked upon as an act of desperation.
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
It took me a couple of readings to figure out that the adults who dress up like circus acrobats and run around in circles are joggers. 
…Thing is ... this is Not a representative population. I know I always get crap for saying it, but most people simply don't want to ride bikes.
I am sure people on golf sites cannot comprehend why people do not want to golf.
I am sure people on golf sites cannot comprehend why people do not want to golf.
Sounds great. However, we have this little problem that started in California back in '78 with prop. 13.
As a result of the four decades long tax revolt it spawned, we're dealing with the ultimate priority issue: there's only so much money in the budget and it's not enough…
As a result of the four decades long tax revolt it spawned, we're dealing with the ultimate priority issue: there's only so much money in the budget and it's not enough…
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 08-30-18 at 11:16 AM.
08-30-18, 11:20 AM
#18
BMX Connoisseur
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 774
Bikes: 1988 Kuwahara Newport, 1983 Nishiki, 1984 Diamond Back Viper, 1991 Dyno Compe
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked 108 Times
in
69 Posts
In certain high congestion area's I don't see why pedestrians shouldn't get jay walking tickets on bike paths.
08-30-18, 01:04 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,020
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7382 Post(s)
Liked 3,012 Times
in
1,610 Posts
Pedestrians can use MUPs freely---though not unwisely---but that is asking Way too much of the current population of this country---but Bike Lanes on the road are Exclusively for bikes. I can get a ticket (in some states) for Not being in the bike lane on my bike.
So, as for pedestrians on the bike lane .... anything goes. I won't as a rule behead someone for a first offense ... but if I see a one-armed pedestrian walking towards me in a marked lane .......
08-30-18, 02:47 PM
#20
BMX Connoisseur
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 774
Bikes: 1988 Kuwahara Newport, 1983 Nishiki, 1984 Diamond Back Viper, 1991 Dyno Compe
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked 108 Times
in
69 Posts
This is why I specified "BIKE LANES" (the lanes on the road which are marked with silly bike stencils, and which in some states a cyclist is Required by Law to Use if they are present) versus MUPs, which are (by definition) designed for any and all comers except (in most cases) anything motorized and non-medical.
Pedestrians can use MUPs freely---though not unwisely---but that is asking Way too much of the current population of this country---but Bike Lanes on the road are Exclusively for bikes. I can get a ticket (in some states) for Not being in the bike lane on my bike.
So, as for pedestrians on the bike lane .... anything goes. I won't as a rule behead someone for a first offense ... but if I see a one-armed pedestrian walking towards me in a marked lane .......
Pedestrians can use MUPs freely---though not unwisely---but that is asking Way too much of the current population of this country---but Bike Lanes on the road are Exclusively for bikes. I can get a ticket (in some states) for Not being in the bike lane on my bike.
So, as for pedestrians on the bike lane .... anything goes. I won't as a rule behead someone for a first offense ... but if I see a one-armed pedestrian walking towards me in a marked lane .......
08-30-18, 04:25 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,020
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7382 Post(s)
Liked 3,012 Times
in
1,610 Posts
In fact, if you had read the thread, you might have noticed that my first post said ........
A pedestrian can be ticketed for jaywalking, etc, for walking in an unsafe manner.
A driver/rider is supposed to yield in that it is Not permissible to ram a pedestrians. The pedestrian does not have a Legal 'right of way" as other safety laws apply---pedestrians cannot walk wherever they want and say "Car's have to stop of go around." Legally a driver cannot hit a pedestrian, Even if the pedestrian is breaking the law.
I am sure you could get pedestrians ticketed Eventually, after hours of footage of bad behavior ... but I am not sure most police forces would want to issue a ticket in most cases ---but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
A driver/rider is supposed to yield in that it is Not permissible to ram a pedestrians. The pedestrian does not have a Legal 'right of way" as other safety laws apply---pedestrians cannot walk wherever they want and say "Car's have to stop of go around." Legally a driver cannot hit a pedestrian, Even if the pedestrian is breaking the law.
I am sure you could get pedestrians ticketed Eventually, after hours of footage of bad behavior ... but I am not sure most police forces would want to issue a ticket in most cases ---but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
08-31-18, 06:01 AM
#22
Senior Member
I appreciated the comment that the legal requirements may vary. But what is the safe and courteous thing to do? 1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong." 2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not. 3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
1. I think Maelochs correctly pointed out that it is not permissible to ram (and my addition here) or otherwise harm pedestrians or other road users.
2. Even if the bike lane is stated as a way only intended to facilitate bicycle travel, it is not the task of a cyclist to enforce that order. That's for the police.
3. If a cyclist chooses to try to force other users out of the way and in so doing causes harm, he/she has caused harm or injury and could (should?) be held liable for that choice.
4. As above, safety first regardless of who is right or wrong.
5. Courtesy: many acts discussed in these forums can be seen as discourteous, i.e. how we pass peds on MUPs and other shared travel ways. Likewise, we see a lot of motor vehicle behavior as discourteous, and we see a lot of pedestrian behavior similarly. Such as, 5 moms with strollers, toddlers, and dogs on leashes stopped in the middle of a 14 foot major city park path, obliviously having a conversation and not responsive to bicycle bells or requests to be allowed to pass.
08-31-18, 06:10 AM
#23
Senior Member
This is why I specified "BIKE LANES" (the lanes on the road which are marked with silly bike stencils, and which in some states a cyclist is Required by Law to Use if they are present) versus MUPs, which are (by definition) designed for any and all comers except (in most cases) anything motorized and non-medical.
Pedestrians can use MUPs freely---though not unwisely---but that is asking Way too much of the current population of this country---but Bike Lanes on the road are Exclusively for bikes. I can get a ticket (in some states) for Not being in the bike lane on my bike.
So, as for pedestrians on the bike lane .... anything goes. I won't as a rule behead someone for a first offense ... but if I see a one-armed pedestrian walking towards me in a marked lane .......
Pedestrians can use MUPs freely---though not unwisely---but that is asking Way too much of the current population of this country---but Bike Lanes on the road are Exclusively for bikes. I can get a ticket (in some states) for Not being in the bike lane on my bike.
So, as for pedestrians on the bike lane .... anything goes. I won't as a rule behead someone for a first offense ... but if I see a one-armed pedestrian walking towards me in a marked lane .......
09-01-18, 10:04 AM
#24
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ped rights vary
As others have stated, you should check the laws where you live. They vary, so anything I say here isn't necessarily true everywhere...
In general, pedestrians have the right of way at intersections, whether there is a marked crosswalk or not. They generally do NOT have the same rights if not at an intersection. In many places, if crossing away from an intersection, pedestrians must YIELD to ALL TRAFFIC. Bicyclists are traffic, so a pedestrian should yield to oncoming bicyclists. As regards pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes: bicycle lanes are TRAVEL lanes, the same as all the other lanes on the roadway. Again, I can't say this is universally true, but in many places pedestrians do not have the right to use travel lanes unless there is no sidewalk.
Important note: "sidewalk," "bike lane," and "MUP" (multi-use paths) are not the same. They many or may not be defined in your state or town's laws...The rules are different depending on which one of those we're talking about.
In general, pedestrians have the right of way at intersections, whether there is a marked crosswalk or not. They generally do NOT have the same rights if not at an intersection. In many places, if crossing away from an intersection, pedestrians must YIELD to ALL TRAFFIC. Bicyclists are traffic, so a pedestrian should yield to oncoming bicyclists. As regards pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes: bicycle lanes are TRAVEL lanes, the same as all the other lanes on the roadway. Again, I can't say this is universally true, but in many places pedestrians do not have the right to use travel lanes unless there is no sidewalk.
Important note: "sidewalk," "bike lane," and "MUP" (multi-use paths) are not the same. They many or may not be defined in your state or town's laws...The rules are different depending on which one of those we're talking about.
09-01-18, 11:33 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
As others have stated, you should check the laws where you live. They vary, so anything I say here isn't necessarily true everywhere...
In general, pedestrians have the right of way at intersections, whether there is a marked crosswalk or not. They generally do NOT have the same rights if not at an intersection.
In many places, if crossing away from an intersection, pedestrians must YIELD to ALL TRAFFIC. Bicyclists are traffic, so a pedestrian should yield to oncoming bicyclists. As regards pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes: bicycle lanes are TRAVEL lanes, the same as all the other lanes on the roadway.
Again, I can't say this is universally true, but in many places pedestrians do not have the right to use travel lanes unless there is no sidewalk.
Important note: "sidewalk," "bike lane," and "MUP" (multi-use paths) are not the same. They many or may not be defined in your state or town's laws...The rules are different depending on which one of those we're talking about.
In general, pedestrians have the right of way at intersections, whether there is a marked crosswalk or not. They generally do NOT have the same rights if not at an intersection.
In many places, if crossing away from an intersection, pedestrians must YIELD to ALL TRAFFIC. Bicyclists are traffic, so a pedestrian should yield to oncoming bicyclists. As regards pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes: bicycle lanes are TRAVEL lanes, the same as all the other lanes on the roadway.
Again, I can't say this is universally true, but in many places pedestrians do not have the right to use travel lanes unless there is no sidewalk.
Important note: "sidewalk," "bike lane," and "MUP" (multi-use paths) are not the same. They many or may not be defined in your state or town's laws...The rules are different depending on which one of those we're talking about.
…My own thought is that a MUP [even if called a bikepath] is not so much a commuter route, or training venue, but a pastoral park, where people can enjoy themselves without too many worries, and needn’t be always vigilant, as is a cyclist on the Road…
My own Golden Rule of Cycling is “Do unto the Pedestrians, as you would have the Cagers do unto you.”.
My own Golden Rule of Cycling is “Do unto the Pedestrians, as you would have the Cagers do unto you.”.
IMO the vast majority of pedestrians on a MUP / Bikepath are more likely motorists rather than cyclists, and do not share the opinion that they do not belong on the Path
So I don’t expect pedestrians to show the same respect to cyclists, as we have to show toward cars i.e. “share the road.” Especially since those users likely paid more to construct the Path as their refuge from driving. So why should cyclists, likely the minority of users, take over these public spaces?
So I don’t expect pedestrians to show the same respect to cyclists, as we have to show toward cars i.e. “share the road.” Especially since those users likely paid more to construct the Path as their refuge from driving. So why should cyclists, likely the minority of users, take over these public spaces?
A pedestrian can be ticketed for jaywalking, etc, for walking in an unsafe manner…
I am sure you could get pedestrians ticketed Eventually, after hours of footage of bad behavior ... but I am not sure most police forces would want to issue a ticket in most cases---but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
I am sure you could get pedestrians ticketed Eventually, after hours of footage of bad behavior ... but I am not sure most police forces would want to issue a ticket in most cases---but as with cars and walkers, the fact that you cannot ram them does not equate to them having a Right to be there.
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 09-01-18 at 11:37 AM.
