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

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:40:15 -0000, "Light of Aria"
wrote:


"Phil Armstrong" wrote in message
...
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.

This sounds suspiciously like a piece of concern trolling to me.

Replace cyclist with car driver & pedestrian with cyclist in the OP's
rant. Does it still sound reasonable?

Shared use paths are just that: shared use. If you can't cope with a
pedestrian acting unpredictably then you're going too fast.

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key:
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt



More or less, I am of your opinion here. Shared use cyclists are adequate
for meandering along slowly but perilous above a certain speed.

I think the use of headphones on a shared use cycle path however to be as
unreasonable as drunk-driving and jumping red-lights.



Right - well there is a sense of proportion if ever I saw one.


--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:21:37 -0000, "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?

I think you've spotted one of the inherant disadvantages in shared use
cycle paths thingys. I tend to avoid them if at all possible.

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

You can sue. I doubt you would win.


With any transport facility that is shared, and having
vehicles/objects/people travelling at different speeds, let along
directions, there is always a danger of collision. Whether that be road,
pavement, sealane or airway. It's just a question of when and how often,
rather than if, IMHO

aigle_de_la_route wrote:
In article 20090306145626.3e87ae77@bluemoon,
Rob Morley wrote:

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:51:51 +0000
lardyninja wrote:


aigle_de_la_route wrote, On 06/03/2009 13:43:
In article ,
"Light of Aria" wrote:

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.

No more than they deserve.



What an asinine comment. When there are vulnerable and unpredictable
road users around, just bloody well slow down.

No, he's right. Car drivers should likewise knock off any cyclists
who get in their way, especially kids and grannies ...

If I do something 'asinine' on my bicycle whilst mingling with
vehicles far heavier and more destructive than my body and a Surly,
then don't cry for me. Cos it'll be no more than I deserve. We
tolerate ****ing idiots too much already. The world is full of them,
and the world is overcrowed.

If I ride like a ****wit, then I'll get a ****wit's reward. That
seems only fair. How is it any different when some retard walks on a
cycle path (you know, the bit of the ground with big ****ing bicycle
symbols on it?) wearing a set of earplugs and caring only for his
sorry arse and his music?

WTF happened to taking responsibility for one's stupidity?

It could be argued that riding around expecting flawless behaviour from
everyone around you is riding like a ****wit.

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.

You really have two choices.
a) cycle in the road, usually at a reasonable speed.
b) use a SHARED use path, and be prepared to slow right down when
needed, stop if you have to.

When I use a shared path, I know it is my choice to be there, rather
than in the road, and I slow down accordingly.

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

Mark wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:21:37 -0000, "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?

I think you've spotted one of the inherant disadvantages in shared use
cycle paths thingys. I tend to avoid them if at all possible.

some can be very nice though, but you'd be daft to see them as any thing
but a potter at most.

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

You can sue. I doubt you would win.

well indeed you can sue over almost any thing how long you last in court
well thats another matter altogether.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Mar 6, 2:51*pm, lardyninja wrote:
aigle_de_la_route wrote, On 06/03/2009 13:43:

In article ,
*"Light of Aria" wrote:

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.

No more than they deserve.

What an asinine comment. When there are vulnerable and unpredictable
road users around, just bloody well slow down.

Yep, that's all you have to do. Just "slow down" (from some arbitrary
speed to some lesser arbitrary speed) and vulnerable road users are
magically protected from any type of error. Rejoice, everyone, road
safety is simplicity itself after all.

On Mar 6, 3:11 pm, Phil Armstrong wrote:
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.

This sounds suspiciously like a piece of concern trolling to me.

Strange, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Has LoA previously done
something (like, shock horror, sticking up for motorists) which
automatically earns him/her the "troll" label no matter what he/she
posts?

Replace cyclist with car driver & pedestrian with cyclist in the OP's
rant. Does it still sound reasonable?

Actually, many here (especially the likes of Spindrift) seem to
villify the car driver far more in your situation than the cyclist in
the OP's scenario. No doubt that's because of the underlying opinion
that drivers "shouldn't be driving at all", and if they weren't then
there would be no car for the pedestrian to step out in front of
(whereas OTOH cyclists are "better" than other road users and so a
certain amount of pedestrian-hitting is "not as bad"). Which is of
course extremely unhelpful, as it is allowing cultural prejudice and
social engineering to interfere with the road safety effort, which is
far more important than the other two things because it's about
stopping people being KILLED.

Shared use paths are just that: shared use. If you can't cope with a
pedestrian acting unpredictably then you're going too fast.

In some circumstances, yes. In others, such as the pedestrian
suddenly changing course at the last second, absolutely not. And it's
the same with pedestrians/cyclists and cars. Only sometimes is the
car driver going too fast, and virtually none of the time has
"exceeding the speed limit" got anything whatsoever to do with it.

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 3:11 pm, Phil Armstrong wrote:
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.

This sounds suspiciously like a piece of concern trolling to me.

Strange, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Has LoA previously done
something (like, shock horror, sticking up for motorists) which
automatically earns him/her the "troll" label no matter what he/she
posts?

Replace cyclist with car driver & pedestrian with cyclist in the OP's
rant. Does it still sound reasonable?



For the record, I cycle 70KM a week in all weathers, and use my car so
infrequently the battery has to stay on a charger.

It's actually quicker for me to cycle along the shared pathways (avoiding
intersections) than sit in the cage driving.

Also, I can crack walnuts with these glutes, which you can't do as a
motorist... ;-)))

"Jolly Polly" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:21:37 -0000, "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?

I think you've spotted one of the inherant disadvantages in shared use
cycle paths thingys. I tend to avoid them if at all possible.

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

You can sue. I doubt you would win.


With any transport facility that is shared, and having
vehicles/objects/people travelling at different speeds, let along
directions, there is always a danger of collision. Whether that be road,
pavement, sealane or airway. It's just a question of when and how often,
rather than if, IMHO


Precisely. And as I spend about 5 hours a week in that situation, the
permutations are starting to count against me!