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

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:06:16 +0000, Jolly Polly wrote:
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

Where does that contradict what I said?
Observe that it says cyclists must stay the correct side.
Observe that it does not put any restriction on pedestrians.

On a segregated path, the two sides are one for pedestrian only, and
one for pedestrian and cyclist. That's how it is. It's plain and
simple fact.

Consider also, that it's just possible that not everything you read on
the web is true.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Light of Aria wrote:
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,

Not a good analogy, a railway line is not a public right of way, a shared
use path is.

"doug" wrote in message
...
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.




The logical conclusion for that is no one would ever go above walking speed
ever!

On 7 Mar, 20:26, "Adam Lea" wrote:
Light of Aria wrote:
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,

Not a good analogy, a railway line is not a public right of way, a shared
use path is.

permitted use is not the same as a right of way.
TJ

On 7 Mar, 20:53, "Light of Aria"
wrote:


The logical conclusion for that is no one would ever go above walking speed
ever!

When there is a physical demarkation such as a kerb edge it is
reasonable to expect large differences in road user speed. When the
carriageway is shared between pedestrian, cyclist, horseman, barrow or
whatever, the responsibility lies on the faster road user to temper
their speed so that the risks of injury through collision is
minimised. Just as a cyclist may need to move into the path of a car
to avoid a pothole, a pedestrian may wander because of unsure footing,
or may just stumble because of illness. The fact that the cyclist is
likely to come of worse in a collision with a pedestrian makes no
difference, he could be deemed liable because of his "excessive" speed
even if it the collision was due to carelessness on behalf of the
pedestrian. 1mph speed difference for every foot is a reasonable
passing speed/distance.
TJ

see http://tinyurl.com/crjnd4

Where does that contradict what I said?

"There are two sorts of shared footpath and cycleway:
Segregated, where a SOLID white line seperates out cyclists and
pedestrians and
Unsegregated, where cyclists and pedestrians share the full width of the
facility"

The clues are in the words; segregated; separates

Observe that it says cyclists must stay the correct side.
Yes it says "Keep to the side intended for cyclists" which by
implication means cyclists only.

Observe that it does not put any restriction on pedestrians.
Logically reading the sign with the line down it, cycles only on the
left and pedestrians only on the right.
Why else would it go on to say "Give way to pedestrians who may be
crossing the cycle lane..."

Jolly Polly wrote:
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

Interesting picture.

If I was walking along that path, I would seriously consider walking on
the cycle side, given the amount of overhanging trees on the ped. side.

There is a segregated shared path near me that I sometimes use, and most
pedestrians and cyclists seem to ignore the signs saying which side to
use, with most cyclists staying to the left of the line apart from when
passing peds. on their side.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
see http://tinyurl.com/crjnd4

Where does that contradict what I said?

"There are two sorts of shared footpath and cycleway:
Segregated, where a SOLID white line seperates out cyclists and
pedestrians and
Unsegregated, where cyclists and pedestrians share the full width of the
facility"

The clues are in the words; segregated; separates

Yes, two SEGREGATED area - one for pedestrians only and one for
pedestrians and cyclists.

However, there is no gain for me in convincing you that you are not
Napoleon.

I have told you the facts. You carry on in your wilful ignorance, if
it make you happy, but you ARE wrong.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:34:04 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

"There are two sorts of shared footpath and cycleway:
Segregated, where a SOLID white line seperates out cyclists and
pedestrians and
Unsegregated, where cyclists and pedestrians share the full width of the
facility"

The clues are in the words; segregated; separates

What the words mean is not what you wish them to mean. Segregated
means that cyclists are segregated to one side of the path.
Pedestrians are not segregated to one side of the path.

Unsegregated means that cyclists are not segregated to one side of
the path.

Observe that it says cyclists must stay the correct side.
Yes it says "Keep to the side intended for cyclists" which by
implication means cyclists only.

The words do not mean what you wish them to mean. They mean what
several people have told you they mean.

The link you gave is wrong in this respect. You should ask the
council to correct it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:01:07 +0000 someone who may be Martin
wrote this:-

http://www.devon.gov.uk/contrast/cross2.jpg

If I was walking along that path, I would seriously consider walking on
the cycle side, given the amount of overhanging trees on the ped. side.

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width of
the pavement.

ISTM that cyclists would be well advised to use the road, except
where motor traffic is constipated in which case the cycle
"facility" may provide a means of bypassing the cagers.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54