Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
k...
Light of Aria wrote:

I am increasingly concerned / distressed / irritated by fools with
headphones on who meander along shared use cycle paths, whom upon
approaching, I sound the courtesy bells several times, and yet the
pedestrians do not acknowledge one's approach.

If one is proceeding along the green cycle lane, as designated, at
reasonable speed, sounds several courtesy warning bells, displays
lighting,
reflective jackets, and white cycle helmets, what is the legal position
should the pedestrian suddenly veer from the pedestrian section into the
path of the cyclist without looking/shoulder checking/life-saver-ing?

Can the cyclist sue the pedestrian? Could the pedestrian sue the cyclist.

In my quasi-legal opinion, a cyclist exercising all the above cautions
and
courtesies versus a yob who chooses to listen to his personal audio
system
or jabber inanely on his PAYG phone and chooses not to look could just
about
avoid a manslaughter charge, but I am quite worried what my 35 Kilos of
Bike
plus 84 Kilos of me plus 10 Kilos of luggage at 20KPH would inflict on an
errant mutt-brained pedestrian.

wandering down a path, with the ipod to radio 4 or radio 1 is not
unsociable act, if some one wanders to the left/right then you'll just
have to stop or slow. thats what shared paths are like.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com


And you would say it is acceptable for a pedestrian to step over the clearly
delimited white line on to the green tarmac without looking?

I would say it is no more acceptable to cross onto the cycle track than it
is to meander off a railway platform on to a railway line, off the pavement
on to a road, or off the edge of a cliff into oblivion.



How close can one drive to the edge of a cliff safely? Answer: As far away
as possible.



Human frailty and stupidity excepted of course.

I personally make a judgment call: If its dogs, old people, mothers,
children, or drunks, then I would use maximum caution. I would judge a
person by the vector. If they are walking straight, then I would expect them
to continue to walk straight.

My concern is if / when one gets that judgment call wrong.

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:09:00 -0000,
Light of Aria wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
k...
Light of Aria wrote:

I am increasingly concerned / distressed / irritated by fools with
headphones on who meander along shared use cycle paths, whom upon
approaching, I sound the courtesy bells several times, and yet the
pedestrians do not acknowledge one's approach.

If one is proceeding along the green cycle lane, as designated, at
reasonable speed, sounds several courtesy warning bells, displays
lighting,
reflective jackets, and white cycle helmets, what is the legal position
should the pedestrian suddenly veer from the pedestrian section into the
path of the cyclist without looking/shoulder checking/life-saver-ing?

Can the cyclist sue the pedestrian? Could the pedestrian sue the cyclist.

In my quasi-legal opinion, a cyclist exercising all the above cautions
and
courtesies versus a yob who chooses to listen to his personal audio
system
or jabber inanely on his PAYG phone and chooses not to look could just
about
avoid a manslaughter charge, but I am quite worried what my 35 Kilos of
Bike
plus 84 Kilos of me plus 10 Kilos of luggage at 20KPH would inflict on an
errant mutt-brained pedestrian.

wandering down a path, with the ipod to radio 4 or radio 1 is not
unsociable act, if some one wanders to the left/right then you'll just
have to stop or slow. thats what shared paths are like.

And you would say it is acceptable for a pedestrian to step over the clearly
delimited white line on to the green tarmac without looking?

Absolutely. The line is there for the cyclist not the pedestrian. The
pedestrian is quite at liberty to walk either side of the line if they
wish.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On 07/03/2009 09:25, Andy Leighton wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:09:00 -0000,
Light of Aria wrote:
And you would say it is acceptable for a pedestrian to step over the clearly
delimited white line on to the green tarmac without looking?

Absolutely. The line is there for the cyclist not the pedestrian. The
pedestrian is quite at liberty to walk either side of the line if they
wish.

While this is true according to the letter of the law, and while the
cyclist must bear the greater responsibility for avoiding a collision, I
would say that it is unacceptable for *any* adult to deviate from their
course on a shared use path without first checking that it is safe to do so.

I wouldn't berate a pedestrian *much* for stepping in front of a cyclist
in such a situation, /unless/ the cyclist had given a good audible
warning of his presence (as described in the first post in this thread).
If an audible warning has been given then there is no excuse for not
being aware that a bike is about to go past. If the ped is hearing
impaired (whether by choice or not) then he should take extra care to
look around before changing course. By not doing so he is endangering
others - remember, even at speeds below 10mph you could be knocked off
your bike by someone stepping into your front wheel as you draw level.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Danny Colyer wrote:

I wouldn't berate a pedestrian *much* for stepping in front of a cyclist
in such a situation, /unless/ the cyclist had given a good audible
warning of his presence (as described in the first post in this thread).
If an audible warning has been given then there is no excuse for not
being aware that a bike is about to go past. If the ped is hearing
impaired (whether by choice or not) then he should take extra care to
look around before changing course. By not doing so he is endangering
others - remember, even at speeds below 10mph you could be knocked off
your bike by someone stepping into your front wheel as you draw level.

Is it not possible to draw an alternative, parallel, lesson from that fact?

Something like: "Don't cycle on footways even in locations where the local
council have decided to decriminalise it"?

AAMOF, that lesson is a very obvious one. If it's the pedestrian's "fault"
for changing direction slightly (on a footway, remember) just as a cyclist
passes him at speed and very close, isn't it also the cyclist's fault if he
does something analagous on a carriageway?

Surely no-one would try to claim that one both ways?

Light of Aria wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
k...
Light of Aria wrote:

I am increasingly concerned / distressed / irritated by fools with
headphones on who meander along shared use cycle paths, whom upon
approaching, I sound the courtesy bells several times, and yet the
pedestrians do not acknowledge one's approach.

If one is proceeding along the green cycle lane, as designated, at
reasonable speed, sounds several courtesy warning bells, displays
lighting,
reflective jackets, and white cycle helmets, what is the legal position
should the pedestrian suddenly veer from the pedestrian section into the
path of the cyclist without looking/shoulder checking/life-saver-ing?

Can the cyclist sue the pedestrian? Could the pedestrian sue the cyclist.

In my quasi-legal opinion, a cyclist exercising all the above cautions
and
courtesies versus a yob who chooses to listen to his personal audio
system
or jabber inanely on his PAYG phone and chooses not to look could just
about
avoid a manslaughter charge, but I am quite worried what my 35 Kilos of
Bike
plus 84 Kilos of me plus 10 Kilos of luggage at 20KPH would inflict on an
errant mutt-brained pedestrian.

wandering down a path, with the ipod to radio 4 or radio 1 is not
unsociable act, if some one wanders to the left/right then you'll just
have to stop or slow. thats what shared paths are like.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com


And you would say it is acceptable for a pedestrian to step over the clearly
delimited white line on to the green tarmac without looking?

the white line is for you or me on the bike.

for the ped it may as well not be there.

I would say it is no more acceptable to cross onto the cycle track than it
is to meander off a railway platform on to a railway line, off the pavement
on to a road, or off the edge of a cliff into oblivion.


are you serious?

How close can one drive to the edge of a cliff safely? Answer: As far away
as possible.



Human frailty and stupidity excepted of course.

I personally make a judgment call: If its dogs, old people, mothers,
children, or drunks, then I would use maximum caution. I would judge a
person by the vector. If they are walking straight, then I would expect them
to continue to walk straight.

My concern is if / when one gets that judgment call wrong.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:54:00 +0000, Danny Colyer
wrote:
SNIP

By not doing so he is endangering
others - remember, even at speeds below 10mph you could be knocked off
your bike by someone stepping into your front wheel as you draw level.


Indeed and neither you nor the cyclist injuries would be included in
the STATS19 data.

--

Passenger casualty rates (killed or seriously injured)
by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:

Pedal Cyclists : 533

Pedestrians : 384

Which do you think is the most dangerous?

And you would say it is acceptable for a pedestrian to step over the
clearly
delimited white line on to the green tarmac without looking?

Absolutely. The line is there for the cyclist not the pedestrian. The
pedestrian is quite at liberty to walk either side of the line if they
wish.



That statement in isolation, I agree with.

However with the right to walk anyway within the space comes the
responsibility to do so safely and with consideration for the saferty of
others and one's self.

My complaint is about the second part of the juxtoposition, not the first!


_

On Mar 6, 1:21*pm, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
I am increasingly concerned / distressed / irritated by fools with
headphones on who meander along shared use cycle paths, whom upon
approaching, I sound the courtesy bells several times, and yet the
pedestrians do not acknowledge one's approach.

If one is proceeding along the green cycle lane, as designated, at
reasonable speed, sounds several courtesy warning bells, displays lighting,
reflective jackets, and white cycle helmets, what is the legal position
should the pedestrian suddenly veer from the pedestrian section into the
path of the cyclist without looking/shoulder checking/life-saver-ing?

Can the cyclist sue the pedestrian? Could the pedestrian sue the cyclist.

In my quasi-legal opinion, a cyclist exercising all the above cautions and
courtesies versus a yob who chooses to listen to his personal audio system
or jabber inanely on his PAYG phone and chooses not to look could just about
avoid a manslaughter charge, but I am quite worried what my 35 Kilos of Bike
plus 84 Kilos of me plus 10 Kilos of luggage at 20KPH would inflict on an
errant mutt-brained pedestrian.


As I have pointed out in the past, anybody using a heavy & fast
machine should be able to stop before hitting a pedestrian who walks
out in front of him. If the rider/driver can not stop he is going to
fast & must be at fault.


UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Light of Aria wrote:


And you would say it is acceptable for a pedestrian to step over the
clearly
delimited white line on to the green tarmac without looking?

Absolutely. The line is there for the cyclist not the pedestrian. The
pedestrian is quite at liberty to walk either side of the line if they
wish.



That statement in isolation, I agree with.

However with the right to walk anyway within the space comes the
responsibility to do so safely and with consideration for the saferty of
others and one's self.

My complaint is about the second part of the juxtoposition, not the first!



I thought the line was for both pedestrian and cyclist - to keep them
apart, separate, each to there own lane. Am I wrong then?
http://tinyurl.com/adgxn4
http://www.devon.gov.uk/contrast/cross2.jpg

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:52:51 +0000, Jolly Polly wrote:
I thought the line was for both pedestrian and cyclist - to keep them
apart, separate, each to there own lane. Am I wrong then?

Yes, you are wrong. The line divides the path into two regions - one
from which cyclists are prohibited but pedestrians may use, and one
which both cyclists and pedestrians can use.

The line has no obligatory meaning to pedestrians- the whole path is
for pedestrians, and part of it is also for cyclists.


But it says here that the white line separates out cyclists and
pedestrians, as I thought. Surely it cannot vary from area to area
see http://tinyurl.com/crjnd4