Originally Posted by JoeyBike (Post 16808931)

You gotta take SOME responsibility for your own safety out there.

Originally Posted by JoeyBike (Post 16808847)

Do you think the outcome would have been any different if their backs were turned to you? At least there was a chance they could react if they were facing you. My wife and I would have simply stepped off the path and let you go by.

If everyone at least TRIES to be courteous there would be very few problems in MUPs. Trouble is, almost everyone on those things are entitled j@ck@$$3$ with their heads in the clouds or unwilling to slow down for a moment.

Originally Posted by JoeyBike (Post 16808607)

My wife and I walk on several MUPs, some of them fairly narrow as well. How we handle it, we walk FACING "traffic" just as if we were walking on a state highway with no sidewalks. This way, faster trail users overtaking us don't have to do anything, say anything, or move anywhere. They just keep doing what they are doing. Then should we SEE other trail users closing in on us from the front side we simply look over our shoulder to see if anyone is coming up from behind us. If the coast is clear, we step to the right side of the trail and let the cyclists approaching from up front keep their line and lane. As soon as they pass we move back to the left side facing traffic. If there are cyclists coming up in front and behind us we just step off the trail momentarily and let everyone get past, then resume our peaceful walk. We are not counting on hearing anything. We could have music blowing our eardrums out. We LOOK OUT for other trail users, which is ridiculously easy to do on foot. An MUP is the same as any other roadway shared by foot traffic and wheeled traffic as far as I am concerned.

And THIS^^ is how I expect all pedestrians to act on MUPs. Wish in one hand, spit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Some here might find this video of mine fun regarding how most people in my town use MUPs.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16809110)

And yet, in spite of how "MADDENING" it may be... it seems the cyclist (Joey) managed to do a lap without hitting one meat pylon. Gee, how tough can it be?

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 16808940)

...we both have to come to a complete stop and wait...

Originally Posted by RaleighSport (Post 16808564)

I find it very interesting you've seized on that section of my thoughts and completely disregard the parallels with road use for cycling.. even though that's exactly the part of my thought you chose to address or rather.. promote an agenda via? And FWIW, most mup's/park trails etc around here, do require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back and pass safely.. it also outlines basic rules for pedestrians as well that they disregard. I refer you back to my question of where do we fit in.. if everyone else demands entitlements to the roads and MUP's, where do we ride?

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 16808591)

I honestly don't see how you reached that (incorrect) conclusion.

The one and only reason I "ding" at pedestrians is a courtesy so that they don't inadvertently jump into my path. What they actually do is up to them, and I deal with it as necessary.

Obnoxious - some probably think so but many people thank me as I pass so I think that opinion is of the fringe.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16808507)

Why do some cyclists believe that every pedestrian (on a recreational path/trail where walking is permitted) is required to "react" in some way to obnoxious or loudmouth cyclists? What reaction do these bell ringing shouting cyclists expect? A bow or curtsey, perhaps? Why shouldn't pedestrians on a recreational path talk to each other or on a cell phone, or listen to their music?

Maybe speed happy cyclists should find another route, or perish the thought, slow down to a pace consistent with cycling amongst the many legitimate users of a MUP.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16809929)

I don't know where your location of "STS" is, but I've never seen any MUP'S or park trails that require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back, or forbid pedestrians from wearing headphones. Does STS also require motorists to alert every cyclist from a ways back?

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16809929)

I don't know where your location of "STS" is, but I've never seen any MUP'S or park trails that require cyclists to alert pedestrians from a ways back, or forbid pedestrians from wearing headphones. Does STS also require motorists to alert every cyclist from a ways back?

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 16810989)

It's posted on every entrance on the one I frequent. Along with a few other rules, such as pedestrians keeping to the right and move off the path when you stop.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16811127)

I am most familiar with the paths in Philadelphia since I have ridden on them for more than 40 years. Never seen these "rules." Maybe some Philadelphia area BF photobug or BF pseudo lawyer can straighten me out.

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 16811168)

You didn't specify Philadelphia earlier, but as for here Guide to the Big Creek Greenway to make your experience more enjoyable while Walking, Running, or Biking
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=384509
consider yourself straightened!

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16811190)

Thanks, I will keep these "rules" in mind next time I ride on the Big Creek Greenway.

Originally Posted by kickstart (Post 16811955)

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me common sense and common courtesy dictate that all users of a public facility are obligated to minimize their negative impact on others as much as reasonably possible.

Originally Posted by HawkOwl (Post 16811531)

> The pedestrian has no responsibility to "get out of the way".

Originally Posted by kickstart (Post 16811955)

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me common sense and common courtesy dictate that all users of a public facility are obligated to minimize their negative impact on others as much as reasonably possible.

Originally Posted by HawkOwl (Post 16811531)

There have been some posts that have skirted around the key factors. Maybe they should be clearly stated: >On a MUP it is the cyclist's responsibility to avoid the pedestrian. Pedestrians have the right of way. > It is the overtaking (passing) vehicle that has the burden of maintaining safety. > The pedestrian has no responsibility to "get out of the way". The pedestrian may, but is not obligated to give way unless there are specfic rules to the contrary posted.

In application these are no different than motoring or boating rules.


So, if you are one of those people who just can't discipline yourself to ride safely on Multiple Use Paths don't ride there.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16812606)

However, it is a shame that we are allowing our bike paths to complete the progression from bike path to MUP to off-road sidewalk, if not legally then by convention.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16812768)

Perhaps you can expound on the concept and definition of "our bike paths" and what made this real estate originally an exclusive province of and for bike users; when and where did this occur? Were bicycle users the only source of the labor, money and resources required to build "our bike paths" on public land?