If Adults on bikes could be as simple as kids on bikes

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:11:19 GMT,
, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

I 'm with Maggie on this one. The "on your left" stuff just doesn't work
with a *lot* of people, yet we continue to come up with reasons why it's
appropriate. Sorry, but people get easily confused when something's coming
up from behind them, and in the auto world (which they're used to), you
don't have a similar epithet or appropriate response.

The problem is the "left" part of it. Somehow it implies that *you* (the
rider in front) are supposed to do something... but the reality is that
you're supposed to do absolutely nothing except hold your present line.

I have bells on most of my bikes but when appropriate I use what was
always used in restaurant kitchens. "Behind You" and after
acknowledgement, "Coming Through", followed by a "Thank You".

In potentially dangerous situations it would just be "Hot Stuff!
Coming Through" and it was like the Red Sea parting. But in a close
knit working group it's fine because everyone understands.

That whole "On Your Left" crap is just that. Keep it in your club
rides if you like but don't start screaming it at me or you could get
poked.
--
zk

There are rules and customs that we all ought to follow, but, get real: the
day will never come when every trail user is educated AND tuned in.

My main rule is: Do what is least likely to cause a problem. This can mean
ringing a bell, or calling out, or going off the trail, or slowing down. No
matter whether the number of trail users doing it "right" is 90%, 99% or
99.9%, you can be sure it will never be 100%.

If you like to ride fast, and don't like to slow down, avoid multi-use
trails.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:18:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Dave Vandervies) wrote:

Yep. Simple enough to write it on your hands if you can't memorize it:
-Stay to your right

You have GOT to be kidding. All joggers -must- run against "vehicular
traffic". (uh, even though, on a trail, there's no "vehicles"). ;-D

UNLESS:
-you're passing somebody going the same direction as you, then pass on
your left.
-you're walking a dog, then if the dog wants to go to the left side go
with it so the leash doesn't cross the path.

Far too complex for peds to deal, lol.

jj

Leo Lichtman wrote:

If you like to ride fast, and don't like to slow down, avoid multi-use
trails.



I am not that fast, I slow down for peds, usually avoid multi-use trails
and still have had some close encounters. Most of the time, the
runners/walkers/rollerbladers get preoccupied talking/listening to their
music and are just not paying attention. I'm not going to run over
anybody just to make a point.

: I 'm with Maggie on this one. The "on your left" stuff just doesn't
: work with a *lot* of people, yet we continue to come up with reasons
: why it's appropriate. Sorry, but people get easily confused when
: something's coming up from behind them, and in the auto world (which
: they're used to), you don't have a similar epithet or appropriate
: response.

Really? In the auto world you have rules that people pass you on the
left. You have signal lights that tell when people are about the change
lanes, and you have side-view and rear-view mirrors. This cycling notion
is patterned after it, but modified as people who walk around don't have
side and rear view mirrors. You saying "on your left" is like turning on
your car's left-turn blinker. It's information.


Roger: In the auto world, you're generally paying attention to what's in
FRONT of you, not what's behind (providing you're not changing lanes, which
is not the appropriate analogy in this case). You're not looking in the
rear-view mirror to see if someone is using blinkers to indicate they're
about to pass you. Perhaps you SHOULD, but unless you've spent much time on
a motorcycle, I'll bet you don't spend nearly as much time with your rear
view mirror as you should (when you're driving in a straight line, not
intending to pass anyone or change lanes).

So saying "On your left" might make sense if you were doing something that
requires the other person to take action (which isn't the case here; we're
only expecting them to ride in a straight line) *or* if you're coming to an
intersection and they might be making a left turn in front of you. That
would be where the blinker analogy might come in, but even then, it's
reversed... blinkers are generally for the benefit of those BEHIND you, with
the exception of intersections.

In most every case I can think of, one is fine just riding past, with a
reasonable distance between yourself and the slower cyclist. If you're in a
situation where the bikepath (or whatever) is so narrow that it's a tight
squeeze, and you're worried that something might happen as you go flying
through... then you're simply going too fast for the conditions.

: The problem is the "left" part of it. Somehow it implies that *you*
: (the rider in front) are supposed to do something... but the reality
: is that you're supposed to do absolutely nothing except hold your
: present line.

How does saying "on your left" imply that? It's short for "I'm on your
left" and all you need to understand is that someone is approaching you
"on your left". It's very common sense. If you choose to overthink
things....

It may be common sense to you, but it's obviously not common sense to those
who get rattled when someone says that from behind. Predictable behaviour,
that's the key to getting along on the roads. When I'm 78 and still riding
but probably a lot slower than now, and who knows, maybe out on the bikepath
instead of the road, I'll still be doing what I can to ride in a predictable
manner, and I won't need some young whippersnapper coming up fast behind me,
yelling a warning to me that he's coming up fast so I'd better stand my
ground. Most likely I'll be wondering why someone's yelling (which they're
doing because they're moving fast but still a distance away) and thinking
something's wrong. I wouldn't first think that it's *me* that's the wrong
thing.

: : Well yesterday we were walking and talking when we hear a small
: : childs voice yell in a very loud booming voice from a far
: : distance. "BICYCLE COMING THROUGH. BICYCLE COMING THROUGH".
:
: I like it, but think it's something that works for innocent kids

Seriously, now....kids on bike are innocent but adults aren't? They have
to share the facility just as anyone else.

Yes, kids on bikes are more innocent than adults. Yes, they have to share
the same facilities, but we give them a bit more slack than adults. We
assume they don't fully understand the rules of the road and the dangers the
lurk at intersections. And we let them get by with mannerisms that we'd find
offensive in an adult but cute as a kid. That's just the way it is.

but
: for adults would tell people that hey, I'm on a bike, I'm superior,
: get the heck out of my way! Which of course is true. If I were
: putting a lot of time in riding on multi-use bikepaths,

It should not be "get out of my way" but "watch out, there's a fast moving
bike here".

Watch out for what? There should be nothing to watch out for, other than
someone casually passing you at a higher speed. No different from what
happens all the time on a multi-lane highway. On a four-lane road, cars in
the fast lane pass cars in the slow lane all day long without ever giving it
a whole lot of thought. Should they be honking their horns to let those in
the other lane know they're about to pass, so don't move into my lane? Or do
they look for visual cues as to the other driver's attention, and rely on a
relatively-predictable world in which people are assumed capable of acting
intelligently?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I have a bell (brand name Incredibell?) on my mountain bike. I ring it
on blind-corner singletracks, but also for hikers. It's loud enough
that I can ring it from a ways away and the hikers can decide what to
do. The most amusing response (you must have seen it too?) is when the
male steps quickly back behind the female, grabs her by both upper
arms, and "places" her in a position of his choice.

Bizzare.

I don't have a bell on my road/touring bike but I sometimes feel myself
reaching for one.

Gooserider wrote:
"Maggie" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yesterday my husband and I were walking the multi-use path in Brookdale
Park. This is the path where I was knocked over by a cyclist couple
who shouted "ON THE LEFT" because I had no idea which way to move.

You're not supposed to move, then, are you? "ON YOUR LEFT" is a warning to
let slower traffic know you're there. Just hold your line and the faster
cyclist will pass you. Am I wrong?

No you're correct. The problem is that this is not likely to be known
to anyone othere than club cyclists. Maggie is a case in point. She,
AFAIK, does not ride with a cycling club (You don't, right Maggie?).
The cry of "On your left" is meaningless and confusing to most of the
population.

I agree with her that "Bicycle coming through" or similar makes much
more sense on a pathway. "On your left" is cycling jargon and works
perfectly with other cyclists, at least those who speak English, are
not deaf, etc. It is not all that appropriate a phrase in mixed
company.

John Kane
Kingston ON

Marlene Blanshay wrote:
: Roger Zoul wrote:
: Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
: : : Yesterday my husband and I were walking the multi-use path in
: : : Brookdale Park. This is the path where I was knocked over
: : : by a cyclist couple who shouted "ON THE LEFT" because I had
: : : no idea
: : : which way to move.
: :
: : Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. When someone says "On your left" they
: : are essentially telling you that they are on your left and not
: : to move there. That tells you to watch your movements to the
: : left, not to
: : move. Think about it...if they are passing you on the left,
: : then
: : they already have a path over which to travel and they are
: : trying
: : to let you know not to get in that path...think more about
: : it...they cannot demand that you move...so if you are actually
: : blocking their path, they need to stop or they will crash into
: : you.
: : I, for one, would certainly not choose to run into any object
: : on my bike. But if someone perhaps isn't aware of my rapid
: : approach, I
: : would want to let them know I'm coming so they can avoid moving
: : into my path.
: :
: : I 'm with Maggie on this one. The "on your left" stuff just
: : doesn't
: : work with a *lot* of people, yet we continue to come up with
: : reasons
: : why it's appropriate. Sorry, but people get easily confused when
: : something's coming up from behind them, and in the auto world
: : (which they're used to), you don't have a similar epithet or
: : appropriate response.
:
: Really? In the auto world you have rules that people pass you on
: the left. You have signal lights that tell when people are about
: the change lanes, and you have side-view and rear-view mirrors.
: This cycling notion is patterned after it, but modified as people
: who walk around don't have side and rear view mirrors. You saying
: "on your left" is like turning on your car's left-turn blinker.
: It's information.
:
: :
: : The problem is the "left" part of it. Somehow it implies that
: : *you* (the rider in front) are supposed to do something... but
: : the reality
: : is that you're supposed to do absolutely nothing except hold your
: : present line.
:
: How does saying "on your left" imply that? It's short for "I'm on
: your left" and all you need to understand is that someone is
: approaching you "on your left". It's very common sense. If you
: choose to overthink things....
:
: :
: : When I'm overtaking other cyclists, and note that they're riding
: : in a predictable fashion, I say nothing. Actually, that's not
: : quite true;
: : if there's an opportunity to make myself known audibly, as in
: : casual chat with other cyclists, I do so. Why? Because it's not
: : intimidating, and lets someone know you're there. And then I just
: : ride past (on the left, of course) as if everyone's doing the
: : right thing (which they are). Just as would happen while driving.
:
: That's not exactly what should happen when driving...the person
: ahead of you will see your car approaching, maybe see your left
: turn signal, and be aware that you're passing (assuming two-lane
: roads) and thus not choose to pass at the same time.
:
: Also, saying "on your left" need not be intimidating....you can
: certainly make it so, but there is a thing called "tone" that can
: either be off-putting or friendly...
:
: :
: : On the other hand, saying "On your left" sounds more like a
: : command
: : to get out of the way, perhaps the bicycle equivalent to flashing
: : your lights at somebody.
:
: Only if you choose to look at it that way...if the notion is to
: share a multi-use passage way, then you take it as information...
:
: :
: : And what if the cyclists you're trying to pass are riding all
: : over
: : the place? My guess is that it's even more difficult to instill
: : order into such situations than to simply find a way to give
: : them a
: : wide berth.
:
: If you're trying to pass someone who is all of the place, then
: you're stupid for trying to ride passed. It is better to slow
: down, stay behind and let them know you're there before trying to
: ride ahead.
:
: :
: : : Well yesterday we were walking and talking when we hear a
: : : small childs voice yell in a very loud booming voice from a
: : : far
: : : distance. "BICYCLE COMING THROUGH. BICYCLE COMING THROUGH".
: :
: : I like it, but think it's something that works for innocent kids
:
: Seriously, now....kids on bike are innocent but adults aren't?
: They have to share the facility just as anyone else.
:
: but
: : for adults would tell people that hey, I'm on a bike, I'm
: : superior,
: : get the heck out of my way! Which of course is true. If I were
: : putting a lot of time in riding on multi-use bikepaths,
:
: It should not be "get out of my way" but "watch out, there's a fast
: moving bike here".
:
: I'd invest
: : in a ding-ding bell very quickly. It's not rude, and people
: : naturally move to the side.
:
: That's a good idea....but asking people to move can always be
: considered rude depending on the situation.
:
:
: I find that saying "Excuse me!" usually works where "on your left"
: doesn't. I figure everyone knows what 'excuse me' means.

What does it mean? Get out of my way?

Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:36:10 -0400,
, Marlene Blanshay
wrote:

I find that saying "Excuse me!" usually works where "on your left"
doesn't. I figure everyone knows what 'excuse me' means.

There's no reason a pedestrian should ever have to excuse you.
They may cede their right-of-way. It is theirs to grant or deny.
--
zk

In article ,
"Roger Zoul" writes:

: I find that saying "Excuse me!" usually works where "on your left"
: doesn't. I figure everyone knows what 'excuse me' means.

What does it mean? Get out of my way?

Sometimes it just means a spontaneous, uncontrolled
and phonic bodily function just occurred :-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca