Big Paulie

This is why I ride at least 28's at all times...for taking the grass or dirt around any potential MUP traffic.

Digital Gee

I think my next bike, or at least my next tire, will be 28's. They seem the ideal balance between speed and comfort, at least to me.

Big Paulie

This has been my experience...28's nail it for my riding needs.

jppe

Hey, at least it wasn't a squirrel!!

Carusoswi

Nos88 – reading your original post and then your follow up:

So, you “swung” around her. Do you mean you approached her – sort of like a car on a two lane highway, then, swung around to pass her on the left?
So, you were moving along at sufficient speed to do this?
So, in other words, you were moving along with some degree of velocity, right?
I’m curious what path you were on – are there lanes marked on the path specifically defining the direction of traffic for all users as on a road? If not, then, I would assert that a pedestrian has no responsibility to “be on the right.” She can, if she chooses, legally walk in any direction on any part of the path. If she is with friends, they can walk single file, two abreast, or completely block the path. It’s annoying for cyclists, but, the pedestrian(s) still has(have) the right of way. Common courtesy would dictate that they clear a path for you as you call out to overtake them – but they still have the right of way . . . and that’s what I meant by “even dismounting” if necessary. You do whatever you must to avoid striking someone on foot. If I come upon a group of strollers who are busy talking or holding hands or walking dogs with those @#$% leashes that stretch across the path and if they are rude or oblivious to my approach and don’t clear an obvious and safe path for me to pass them, then, I will stop and put a foot down or even dismount if conditions are congested enough. I will never risk striking someone who is on foot. Obviously, you wouldn’t dismount to pass a jogger who would then be moving faster than you (you did say you were moving at a crawl when the collision occurred, right?).
The only problem is that she evidently didn’t hear you, or, if she did, was so absorbed in what was coming through her ear buds that she did not process your warning. That others heard and processed your warning is irrelevant. Not that this was the case, but you might have been overtaking someone who was hard of hearing – one never knows. Now, in your defense, unless she responds (and if she was proceeding along the right side of the path in a more or less straight line, no response on her part is really required) there is no way you could know whether she heard/processed your warning or not.
Ok, conceded. She didn’t hear you. Are you suggesting this as a justification for striking her?
She probably should have looked. From what you have written about her reaction after the accident, it sounds as if she has accepted at least partial responsibility.
So, which is it, really? You were only crawling or you were moving fast enough to “hit her pretty good on the arm and shoulder”? . . . and “she's going to have some nasty bruises tomorrow” Sounds to me as though you still had some significant forward momentum.

Hopefully, I clarified above what I meant about dismounting – it obviously wouldn’t apply in your case – didn’t mean to imply that it did. I obviously didn’t see your accident – my take on it is only from your written description. But, I was confused by what seem to be some contradictions between your original post and your follow-up. It also sounds as though you expect peds on a path to observe vehicular rules of the road – stay to the right, check to the rear before moving left, etc – all good practices for pedestrians, but not required of them.

If in your opinion this collision was unavoidable, then, I accept your call on it. My only reason for working through your two posts as I have is to examine for discussion purposes some of your reasoning (attitude is too strong a word, I think) that might merit further collective consideration here on the BF forum.

Having recently experienced my own “boo-boo”, I’ll be the last one to cast judgmental “stones”. But your experience provides good discussion fodder for a situation that all of us face on MUP’s from time to time. I’m glad neither you nor she sustained serious injuries, and I’d still be curious to know what path you were on – you’re in the greater Philly area, right?
Happy riding – and I hope you thoroughly shake that virus or whatever it is.
Caruso

Digital Gee

Caruso's post has given me pause. I must admit, I'm guilty of having the belief that pedestrians should always be walking on the right side of the MUP, and furthermore, shouldn't be so rude as to take up the whole path by walking three or four abreast. But I guess there's no law that says they have to keep to the right and only walk in pairs or solo. I'm going to have to develop more patience.

That said, I still am intolerant of the dog owners who have their dogs on those 20 yard long leashes because they're too lazy to teach the dog how to heel. Or heal. Or whatever. I've come up on those and been completely surprised because i didn't see the leash OR the dog, only the human. And the human was usually off to the side of the path.

Big Paulie

Someone stenciled the words, "What part of 'BIKE PATH' don't you get?" along a local bike path every couple of hundred feet, back when MUPs were called "Bike Paths." It had no impact whatsoever!

NOS88

The Inquistion has begun!

No, I had slowed to about 5 to 7 MPH.

I was on the Schuylkill River Trail near the Betzwood Bridge section. If you have ever been on that portion of trail you know that it is clearly marked, "Keep to the right" and as the paths begin from normal starting places, there are lines marking lanes to make it abundantly clear that there are two lanes on the trail.

As it turns out, I myself am hearing impaired. Even with my hearing aids, I only hear about 25% of what most people hear. I went to high school with the first young woman in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to receive a full driver's license. She spoke to my driver's education class in my junior year. Because of my hearing impairment, I was most interested in what she had to say. She said that because she could not hear, she was held to a higher standard in terms of using her other senses. Specifically, when she was tested, they tallied the number of times she visually scanned left to right, looked in her rear view mirror, etc. She had to be much more skilled in using her eyes to compensate for her lack of hearing. Hence, it seems to me, that if you want to impair your hearing, you should be held to the same standard (at least common sense of the survival type would suggest). Hence, it was NOT a good idea to swing across an entire path to make a turn around without looking first.

Once again the Inquistion arrives.... Justification, hell no. I rather view it as a matter of logical consequences. You don't pay attention in traffic and it greatly increases your chances of getting hit.

I weight 240 lbs and was riding a 17 lbs bike. She was maybe 110 lbs soaking wet. I was moving at between 5mph and 7 mph. I would guess she was moving at between 4 and 5 mph. At that combined speed, 257 lbs clipping you leaves bruises.

I expect "peds" to exercise reasonable caution. Choosing to be hearing impaired (via ear buds) and then sweeping across the full lane was not reasonable caution. I feel that I did exercise reasonable caution, otherwise she would (and perhaps I as well) have been seriously injured. It seems, following your logic, that "what is required" of peds is that with which I should be concerned. Rather, I'm concerned with establishing reasonable behaviors for those that use public places. Yes, in my mind, my behavior was reasonable; hers was not.

Caruso, I must confess that the tone of your remarks feels judgmental.

VegasTriker

Get yourself an Airzounds horn. They can be heard no matter how loud the music. While I still use the 'ON YOU LEFT' in most situations, if the person doesn't respond I use a burst of the 120 db horn. They may have to clean their undies but at least I will not hit them. It also works on dogs and dog walkers. I don' use it unless it is absolutely necessary.

I have hit two pedestrians in the past, both Wisconsin. One happened right next to the UW Madison Student Union and the ped was in the crosswalk. The road was snow covered and icy. I slid into her and it was my fault. She was pretty nice about it. The second was a drunk going home from a UW football game. He stepped off the curb directly into my path, leaving me no time to turn (into traffic!) or stop. I flattened him and I remember his curses to this day. I didn't feel the least sorry about that one as I could have ended up under a car in the lane to the left of me.

scottogo

"On your left" means you are more liberal.

Denny Koll

I find it odd that folks on a bike forum feel compelled to find some rationale for the behavior of this pedestrian "obliviot" . Caruso...sounds like you're just trying to play Devil's advocate for some reason...maybe just feeling ornery? This obliviot jogger was endangering herself and others by

1) turning abruptly without looking.

2) wearing ear buds so she couldn't heat other users.


What could be more obvious?

tcar5

I'm up for the 007 style paintball shooter built into the handelbars. Smack em in the rear with that and you should have a clear path. For those with a less evil plan, use a bright orange kids dart gun. Practice makes perfect.

DougG

On our local rail-trails, most people can hear a bike approaching from behind due to the crunching of the surface, and you will see most walkers or runners either move toward the right edge of the trail or else actually glance back at you. One situation that I then run into is when I get pretty close to someone and then get the feeling that they don't know I'm there. At that point, shouting out anything is going to startle them and I'm not sure what direction they might jump! So I have to decide if it's better to just go by them without any signal.

Note that I am also an avid runner who uses these same trails often and I usually run with an MP3 player going, but I have rarely been surprised by a cyclist coming up on me. In fact, it's faster runners who can sometimes startle me when going by!

tcar5

OK, MP3 playing paintball shooter with mace attachment.
Anyone ever have problems passing joggers running with dogs...? Thats a big problem for me, even if the jogger is alerted the dog usually has 2 or 3 feet by which to move into your path.

webist

My normal routes have shoulders or marked bike paths on the road surface as well as MUP. There are times when I choose the MUP, but normally, I stay on the road.

Carusoswi

Take a deep breath, Nos. I told you it wasn’t my intent to be judgmental - and I did ask you whether the path was marked with lanes and notifications for all traffic to keep right. You tell me that it is (was), so, that's good enough for me. I know that path, but haven't been down there in a long time.

I realize that it is sometimes difficult to reduce to written words (especially when writing on a medium as casual as the 'net) both facts in a way that convey the exact nature of an incident. I found some of the details in your second post confusing after having read the first - so I went through both and asked you questions about them.

I'm no better at conveying my intended tone on a BBS than anyone else, so it doesn't surprise me that you took my tone to be that of an inquisitor - sorry, that was not my intent.

Sorry if I offended you.

Caruso

dagna

Well, I don't feel so stupid anymore. Whenever I'm jogging or riding on our local MUP and someone calls out 'on your left', I always acknowledge them with either a 'gotcha' or 'got it', without turning around or looking at them (turning always seems to make one drift left). When I do this, I get the strangest looks from some bike riders as they go by. But I figure if, when I'm riding, it worries me to be unsure if someone heard my warning or not, then it's a good idea to let folks passing me know I'm aware of them and won't be squirreling out into their path.

Dagna

Dchiefransom

On the MUPs around here, the pedestrians have the right of way...period. It's interesting to look at posts of incidents between bikes and pedestrians on paths as I would an incident between a car and cyclist on the road. Many times they sound exactly the same, from from the point of view of a different type of "driver".

Carusoswi

What could be more obvious is that pedestrians always have the right of way over vehicles - even bikes - period. I don't feel it important for me to pursue assignment of responsibility in this particular incident - I wasn't there. NOS88 has explained that he and the other party amicably went on his/her way after the incident – that she seemed to accept at least partial responsibility, and that he feels he is not at fault – and that’s good enough for me.

But, this being a bike forum, I find it a perfect place to discuss the issues that this thread raises. Without concerning ourselves with who was at fault in this incident, we can certainly discuss the merits of statements like yours (the "[obliviot] jogger was endangering herself and others") and NOS88's statement that the choice by a pedestrian to use an ipod is also a choice to impair one's hearing, the implication being that such a choice also somehow diminishes the pedestrian's right of way while using an MUP.

I think most of us as cyclists understand and agree that we have the right to make a choice when someone approaches us from behind in a motor vehicle and blasts his/her horn. We can choose to yield the right of way (by moving to the right, by leaving the road, by dismounting, whatever), or we can hold our position. We can, if we want, simply ignore the blasts. All reactions (or no reaction) on our part is perfectly legal, and the motorist has no right to hit us or harass us in any way.

I would submit that, where pedestrians are concerned, the same degree of right-of-way extends to and in favor of the pedestrian. If we ever expect motorists to develop some empathy for our right as cyclists to be on the road, our attitude towards pedestrians (even those wearing ear buds) needs to be equally considerate.

Demeaning and dehumanizing her by referring to her has an “obliviot” will not change the rules of the road IMO.

You may have a different opinion and are free to express it - and a bike forum is the perfect place for you to do so.

Caruso

NOS88

Caruso: I agree with much of what you post. We do have an obligation to extend right-of-way to pedestrians, and it does not behoove us to act in demeaning ways to anyone. The point at which I find myself straying from your thoughts is that related to actions one takes that creates an impairment. I wonder if you would feel the same way about the driver, cyclist, or runner who has become impaired because of a choice to use too much alcohol? Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but any action one takes that creates a significant impairment brings into question any "right-of-way" considerations. Should a drunk cyclist be allowed to weave in and out of traffic without holding considerable responsibility for his or her actions? I think not. What about the driver that is talking on a cell phone, drinking coffee and reading the newspaper (or putting on makeup)? Should this person be held accountable for any mistakes in judgment or inability to safely operate the motor vehicle? Yet, I agree that as an operator of a motor vehicle, I have a responsibility to try and aovid hitting such an individual. Sometimes, however, the action of others makes it impossible to accomplish what one wants. In my case, I did not want to clip the runner. Yet, her behavior made that next to impossible. With that said, I agree that a fourm is the perfect place to discuss such issues. For my part, my attitude toward runners, drivers, skaters, and cyclists has always been one of respect and assumed mutual consideration of our joint welfare. We all carry the responsibility to cooperate in ways that we can live safely and with some civility.

Carusoswi

NOS88:
You sound like a level headed person. You may or may not be able to discuss some of the issues you raise without relating them directly to your most recent pedestrian encounter – and that’s normal – I would be the same.

Yet, if you can hear me out objectively, I think it unfair to equate the “transgressions” of your pedestrian with those of a drunk cyclist (that comparison is way over the line, IMO) or even a motorist talking on a cell phone or reading the paper while driving, whatever.

Ipods were developed for the use to which your pedestrian was putting hers and her use of it in no way “brings into question any ‘right of way’ considerations.” A drunk cyclist is flat-out breaking the law. Will we next be lobbying for legislation outlawing ipod use while walking/jogging?? I certainly hope not.

It was unfortunate that this pedestrian walked or turned into your path – she may or may not have turned into you had she not been listening to music, we will never know; but, I would disagree that her actions were negligent or her behavior unreasonable. She didn’t see you, you didn’t anticipate her unexpected change in direction, and there was a collision – a minor one, but a collision just the same.

Folks walking or jogging while listening to music may (or may not) be an annoyance to you, but, they have the right to engage in both of those activities simultaneously on a multi-use path, and, like canoes or sailboats on the water, their weaker mode of locomotion gives them implied right of way over almost any vehicle in almost any situation.

I suspect that Denny Koll was not present to witness your accident, so, I take special exception to his insensitive characteristic of this young lady as an “obliviot”. I think it important not to lose sight of the fact that the pedestrian involved is a person – a human being. That she chooses to listen to the latest rap or a Beethoven symphony while jogging does not make her an “obliviot” . . . and even if it could be proven that she was totally to blame, she doesn’t “deserve” her injuries. I’m sure you did all you could to avoid hitting her and trust that you would make that same valiant effort 100 times out of 100 whether the pedestrian is jogging to the left or right, wearing earbuds or some as yet to be invented bike radar. Compared to a bike, hers is the more weakly powered mode of locomotion, and, therefore, she has the right of way.

I won’t babble further on this topic – I think you get my point. It is not directed at you personally. Again, I’m glad that neither of you were more seriously injured. Happy and safe riding to you.

Caruso

Big Paulie

A couple things come to mind...

As far as pedestrians wearing ear buds, remember that in most, if not all, states, drivers aren't allowed to wear headphones while driving. Obviously this has never been applied to cyclists or runners or pedestrians, but it does highlight the idea that wearing ear buds aren't totally without risk. I think it's fair to have negative feelings towards those who choose to wear them -- cyclists or pedestrians -- even if they are perfectly legal. They interfere with one's hearing/awareness. That's why drivers can't wear them. I almost hit a cyclist tonight while driving. He swerved out onto the roadway. I thought he was drunk (4th of July, and all) but as I passed him, I saw he was just listening to music and lost in the beat. I can't even begin to believe that it was my responsibility to anticipate his erratic behavior, even as a cyclist myself.

The second thing is regarding the idea of placing cyclists above pedestrians in the hierarchy of saftey -- meaning pedestrians are the most fragile, and therefore afforded the most consideration. I think that cyclists are at the most risk, because we are not stable at slow speeds. At 2-4 MPH, most of us have to either dismount or speed up. A pedestrian can instantly and safely stop or go at 2-4 MPH. Of course, knowing how to slow and stop safely is our obligation, but the bottom line is that, of everyone on the path, cyclists are at the most risk of low speed accidents.

This is a really great thread...one of the best ever in 50+ IMHO. Some fresh ideas are being kicked around abput an important subject, ideas we really need to consider as cyclists who share trails and MUPs with pedestrians.

jcm

+10 Earbuds are for keeping the wind from blowing the dust through...

DnvrFox

It is the law around here.

Specifically, right of way in order by statute on our mups:

1. Horses

2. Peds

3. Bicyclists

I don't know where scooters and skaters fit in. They don't seem to be mentioned!

NOS88

The discussion in the this thread (OK, yes. I did start the darn thing.) has caused me to explore the issue of my responsibility to an even greater level. Last night while falling asleep I remembered the view held by Fritz Perls (many consider him one of the seminal figures in Gestalt Therapy). He viewed responsibility not as an obligation one might have toward another or one's self. Rather, he looked at it in terms of two words... response - ability. That is, what is my ability to respond in an adaptive way.

Without being fully aware of all of the dynamics behind my feelings and thoughts about the "clipped a jogger" incident, I believe I was reacting more from the point of view expressed by Perls. To me it seems very maladaptive for a healthy, functioning person to reduce their ability to respond, especially when such behavior puts others at risk. I suspose it can be argued that the jogger did not know the dangers of her actions. It does, however, trouble me that so many people seem quite willing to stake a claim on their rights to behave in ways that give them pleasure, satisfaction, etc. without much consideration for how the actions impact on others. I see examples of this everyday, and they seem to be growing. I have a level of pride and satisfaction that my geographic area has seen the advantage of an MUP. I actually value seeing others out using public space for activities that are generally quite healthy. I suspose I'll have to look more deliberately for the tell tale signs of cords dangling from one's head when I'm on MUPs. Just what I'll do to increase my response - ability is yet unclear.

Finally, I am troubled by the seemingly deep reliance on the issue of rights that many folks in the U.S. hold (Not having traveled outside the U.S. much, I can't comment on other places). I remember hearing (sorry, I don't remember where) that the French believe the Americans put too much focus on rights and not enough on mutual responsibility. The woman I clipped did assume some responsibility for what happened, and for this I am grateful. I was not angry at her or annoyed at her. I was troubled that I caused damage to another person, and that the damage may have been worse than it was. I did assume that the ear buds contributed to the situaion, and that assumption/belief annoyed me greatly. Despite what others often hold as truth, I don't believe that you can use these things without creating some level of impairment. For me the issue is not one of, "should there be a law banning them?" Rather it is an issue of how does one conduct one's self when in situations where the behavior of others increases the risk of accident? Several suggestions have been made ranging from staying away from MUP's to using more forceful methods of warning others. Frankly, I'm not sure in what ways I need to change my behavior to accomodate the current situation on MUPs. With some sorrow I am now more fully aware that it is I who will need to change my behavior to improve my response - ability, rather than hoping others will change their behaviors.

Oh, yeah. I do rather like the idea of "bike radar". Anyone working on such a device?