Obstacles on bike paths...

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Richard Sherrat

Up to 50, eh? That seems a bit excessive for the shared paths I've seen. I must admit that the only
one I use regularly is the Gardener's Creek one between the Hawthorn velodrome and the Boulevard at
St Kevin's. There are times when 20 km/h is unsafe on that stretch, even when there aren't cars on
it :-) The kangaroos are bad enough.

<snip>

Perhaps I should make a new thread... but interested to hear of other people's experiences on the Gardiners creek trail, particularly between Toorak rd and the city...

A few months ago during daylight savings I was nearly "caught" by one of the numerous fisherpeople attempting to catch a yarra river 3 headed fish from the floating bridge (curse those 15 min delays!). Coasting along the bridge I hear a thud against my backpack and sure enough, a quick glance confirms my suspicions and there is the hook/sinker on the ground and the guy looking at me in mid-cast position. Surely this can't be legal?

Jakko appears to be a pedestrian with an excess testosterone problem
:-)

John L.

troyq said:

Jarkko Altonen said:

troyq said:

I dont quite get how you can equate this incident with a car/bike situation.

For one, i do not ride up the middle of the right hand side of the road and expect oncoming
vehicles to veer towards the footpath or vehicles on the left to avoid a collision. If I was a
motorist I would have every

<cough> Critical Mass...

And this relates to me, or my incident how?

"troyq" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Sherrat said:

Up to 50, eh? That seems a bit excessive for the shared paths I've

seen. [snip]

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I should make a new thread... but interested to hear of other people's experiences on the
Gardiners creek trail, particularly between Toorak rd and the city...

A few months ago during daylight savings I was nearly "caught" by one of the numerous fisherpeople
attempting to catch a yarra river 3 headed fish from the floating bridge (curse those 15 min
delays!). Coasting along the bridge I hear a thud against my backpack and sure enough, a quick
glance confirms my suspicions and there is the hook/sinker on the ground and the guy looking at me
in mid-cast position. Surely this can't be legal?

1. Who would eat those fish ?
2. I have to agree on the fisherman thing. Duck and cover I guess. Imagine the damage to the face ?
3. My favourite obstacle on that path ? The grunge-gothic rock band trying to film a video clip next
to the path at the Glenferrie Rd underpass, and having a security guy tyring to stop us riding
pass while filming. I have never seen the clip, but I'd live to see it. Smelly guys with long
black hair and leather dacks trying to be all dark and spooky while a couple of bright lycra
warriors with flashing lights come trundling past.

Hate to agree with Jerkko (first time for everything), but he is right on this point.

Yes, it's damn infuriating to have to deal with peds that spread out across the whole path. Yes,
it's a hazard when they do things like move to the right of the path (i.e. into your path of travel
as you prepare to overtake) after you have called out/rung your bell/sounded an air raid klaxon etc.

But at the end of the day it's a pretty simple equation. "Shared path" means just that. It's for all
types of path users. And just because a ped is doing something that annoys us, it doesn't give
cyclists a mandate to careen into them. All the road rules & norms of behaviour (theoretically)
apply on a shared path, and one of those norms is that you must drive/ride in a way which prevents
accidents from occuring. This is what's known as common law (NB - don't want this thread to turn
into a big-time legal huff'n'puff).

Just as a motorist on the roads is obliged to give way to peds & cyclists -- even if the ped/cyclist
is doing something outrageously silly -- cyclists are also obliged to give way to peds on shared
paths. In fact, if you look at a few shared paths in Melbourne, there are signs saying that cyclists
must give way to peds at all times. Hitting a ped -- even accidentally -- is just plain wrong. Allow
for the fact that they may behave erratically, call out or warn them... and if they still don't do
the right thing, slow down. I'm a frequent southside Yarra Trail user when I commute to the city,
and I spend a lot of time dodging Melbourne High kids. But I've never dropped the shoulder into one
of them... that's an idiotic response.

By all means verbally educate them, even do it very vociferously. But hitting a ped is dumb.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OMG, tell me about it! I once collided with a student walking towards me along that stretch, well
more precisely the bag he had on his shoulder. It was enough to spin him 180 deg, and therefore
be watching in my direction as I delivered some words of wisdom. The thing was, these three guys
were walking abreast towards me - 1 to the left and 2 to the right. That didnt leave much room in
the middle on a 5ft wide path. With the preceding 10 seconds of bell ringing, not one of them
moved to the side... and neither did I.

But the situation seems to have improved alot recently. Perhaps there was a lecture at uni on
path etiquette?!

You realise of course that the road is also a shared path, except that Motorists are sharing with
cyclists.

Replay your incident, but in the road scenario - would you like cars behaving toward you, the way
you treated the pedestrian?

Quoted message said:

Up to 50, eh? That seems a bit excessive for the shared paths I've seen. I must admit that the
only one I use regularly is the Gardener's Creek one between the Hawthorn velodrome and the
Boulevard at St Kevin's. There are times when 20 km/h is unsafe on that stretch, even when there
aren't cars on it :-) The kangaroos are bad enough.

Richard, have you really seen kangaroos near St Kevins? I'm asking this because I once saw what I
thought were 'roo paw prints in the mud alongside the Yarra River a bit downstream from where
Gardners Creek meets it. It was a series of about 6 sets of 2 prints side-by-side, about 30-40cm
long and a few cm wide. It looked as if a 'roo had been hopping through the mud. So I'm interested
to hear if there actually are 'roos there!? Or am I just mad 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess this just underlines the common observation that for cyclists, shared paths are good for
recreational rambling but not much else.

A couple of years ago, just after I started riding again, I tried the track between Port Melbourne
and Brighton. On a section that is clearly marked as restricted to bikes and roller blades (the
pedestrian path is close by), I came across a family setting up a portable barbecue on the track.
I stopped (I had no option) and politely mentioned that they were on a bike/rollerblade path and
it might be a good idea to move a few feet onto the grass. That's when the abuse started. I rode
home on the road. Much safer. I shudder to think what might have happened if someone encountered a
barbecue on the track at 50 km/h.

My favourite "obstacle" story is one time when I was coming home along the southside Yarra Trail on
a Friday night after work. It was a night with footy at the MCG, and there were heaps of peds &
commuter cyclists using the trail. As I was riding under the Swan St Bridge I noticed that there
were some very powerful lights coming up behind me -- I could see my own shadow on the path ahead.
At first I thought it might be some rider with a high-wattage lighting system, but I looked back and
saw that it was being caused by two sets of vehicle headlights. I stopped to one side of the path to
wait for them to pass, and saw that it was two cops on quad-bikes (with on-road rego plates). They
were travelling about 30km/h and scattering peds & cyclists every which-way off the trail. I caught
up with one of them and screamed out (over the roar of his engine) "Last time I checked, you weren't
allowed to drive on this path". He basically sneered at me and said that cops could drive anywhere
they like. They seemed to be on footy duty at the MCG, because they turned over the Morrell Bridge &
headed towards the G. No doubt the poor buggers couldn't be sodded waiting in the road traffic, so
they thought they'd take a short-cut. But there were probably about 100 peds & cyclists who were
forced to jump off the path by these jokers.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Justin Mansfiel
Hate to agree with Jerkko (first time for everything), but he is right on this point.

Yes, it's damn infuriating to have to deal with peds that spread out across the whole path. Yes,
it's a hazard when they do things like move to the right of the path (i.e. into your path of travel
as you prepare to overtake) after you have called out/rung your bell/sounded an air raid klaxon etc.

But at the end of the day it's a pretty simple equation. "Shared path" means just that. It's for all
types of path users. And just because a ped is doing something that annoys us, it doesn't give
cyclists a mandate to careen into them. All the road rules & norms of behaviour (theoretically)
apply on a shared path, and one of those norms is that you must drive/ride in a way which prevents
accidents from occuring. This is what's known as common law (NB - don't want this thread to turn
into a big-time legal huff'n'puff).

Just as a motorist on the roads is obliged to give way to peds & cyclists -- even if the ped/cyclist
is doing something outrageously silly -- cyclists are also obliged to give way to peds on shared
paths. In fact, if you look at a few shared paths in Melbourne, there are signs saying that cyclists
must give way to peds at all times. Hitting a ped -- even accidentally -- is just plain wrong. Allow
for the fact that they may behave erratically, call out or warn them... and if they still don't do
the right thing, slow down. I'm a frequent southside Yarra Trail user when I commute to the city,
and I spend a lot of time dodging Melbourne High kids. But I've never dropped the shoulder into one
of them... that's an idiotic response.

By all means verbally educate them, even do it very vociferously. But hitting a ped is dumb.

I agree with most of your points Justin but to judge my actions as "dumb" and "idiotic" with the few snippets of information I provided is a little unreasonable.

By all means suggest your view as to what is the *right* way to behave around pedestrians but unless you witnessed the incident, you will be making assumptions and these will most likely be wrong so your judgements are best left out. And for the record, let me repeat that I did not "drop a shoulder" or in fact event hit the pedestrian, merely his bag in what little gap was provided for me.

However, I agree that avoiding any sort of collision should be the main priority, for everybody's safety. Unfortunately, as most of us have discovered, shared paths/bike paths can be just as, if not more hazardous than roads for a commuting cyclist.

This also reminds me of another incident about 2 months ago...

Riding home about 7pm, over the Brunton Av bridge (from the MCG towards Swan St), I was confronted with a group of 30-40 guys sprinting "backwards" towards me. I am assuming it was Richmond FC or Melbourne Storm out for a training run as they were chanting loudly - easily deafening my bell and screams for "look out".

I was just about at the top of the steep climb over and by the time I could see what was coming toward me, there was no turning back. I stopped and jammed against the left wall of the bridge while trying to alert them to my presence. After one or two guys at the front had collided with my front wheel and handlebar, they tried to alert the others but there was too much noise and they were all still running backwards.

By the time they all passed, at least 10 had collided with me... does that make me "dumb", "idiotic" or "plain wrong" because I am on a bike? (I would hate to have been a pedestrian in this situation)

The fact is that collisions will happen on a shared path because there are circumstances beyond our control. Regardless of the law, there is a risk to all the path users that they must accept.

Quoted message said:

This also reminds me of another incident about 2 months ago...

Riding home about 7pm, over the Brunton Av bridge (from the MCG towards Swan St), I was confronted
with a group of 30-40 guys sprinting "backwards" towards me. I am assuming it was Richmond FC or
Melbourne Storm out for a training run as they were chanting loudly - easily deafening my bell and
screams for "look out".

A pretty unusual situation, wouldn't you say? I have no doubt in your case above that the peds were
contributing greatly to their own predicament. But running/walking backwards in a large group over a
hump bridge is a markedly different situation to three peds walking towards you, where you can see
them and vice versa. You said in your OP that they didn't move despite your bell-ringing, but from
what you have written you apparently continued on regardless without changing your line or speed.
You went for a gap and misjudged it. Whether you hit the ped or his bag is irrelevant -- you hit the
bag with enough force to spin him around. He could have easily wrenched his shoulder in the process.
You also said in a later post that if you had really intended to hit him you would have hit more
than just his bag... so perhaps you can tell me, under what circumstances is it acceptable to
deliberately take out a ped?

Talking of footy teams, I once met the Melbourne FC on a training run on the southern Yarra Trail
just near Church St Bridge where the path is bordered by a hill on one side & a guardrail on the
other (i.e no way to avoid obstacles other than slow down). Two blasts of my Air Zound soon had the
swarm of joggers parting like the Red Sea. They grumbled like hell as I went past, but at least they
moved aside. Had they not chosen to move, what should I have done? Continued on regardless, or
slowed to a speed where it would have been safe to stop if I was possibly going to hit one of them?

"Justin Mansfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... [snip]

Quoted message said:

Talking of footy teams, I once met the Melbourne FC on a training run on

the

Quoted message said:

southern Yarra Trail just near Church St Bridge where the path is bordered by a hill on one side &
a guardrail on the other (i.e no way to avoid obstacles other than slow down). Two blasts of my
Air Zound soon had the swarm of joggers parting like the Red Sea. They grumbled like hell as I

went

Quoted message said:

past, but at least they moved aside. Had they not chosen to move, what should I have done?
Continued on regardless, or slowed to a speed where it would have been safe to stop if I was
possibly going to hit one of them?

Being Melbourne FC, yelled "here comes the ball" and they would have scattered away........

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Justin Mansfiel

A pretty unusual situation, wouldn't you say? I have no doubt in your case above that the peds were
contributing greatly to their own predicament. But running/walking backwards in a large group over a
hump bridge is a markedly different situation to three peds walking towards you, where you can see
them and vice versa. You said in your OP that they didn't move despite your bell-ringing, but from
what you have written you apparently continued on regardless without changing your line or speed.

The fact is that I didnt hit or injure the pedestrian and at no point have I suggested that it is ok to take out a pedestrian... To insinuate that I am out there trying to take out any pedestrian that gets in my way is simply ridiculous. You assume that I had an opportunity to change my line and that I hadn't slowed down. Neither of which is true. But we could go on about this all week...

Quoted post said:

You went for a gap and misjudged it. Whether you hit the ped or his bag is irrelevant -- you hit the
bag with enough force to spin him around.

It was more likely the weight of his bag that spun him around. The fact that I was moving was simply enough to send him and his bag off balance.

Quoted post said:

He could have easily wrenched his shoulder in the process.

But he didn't. No injuries. Nothing more than a fright. Nothing more to be said.

Quoted post said:

You also said in a later post that if you had really intended to hit him you would have hit more
than just his bag... so perhaps you can tell me, under what circumstances is it acceptable to
deliberately take out a ped?

snip

My original point was to highlight the dangerous stretch of bike path between Glenferrie rd and the hockey fields because of the number of pedestrians and lack of shared path etiquette amongst a group of them.

Like I said, the situation seems to have improved and I have not had any more close calls.

See you out on the path 🙂

Justin Mansfield said:

Hate to agree with Jerkko (first time for everything), but he is right on this point.

Can we raise the standard of this discussion above mocking ethnic names please?

John L said:

Jakko appears to be a pedestrian with an excess testosterone problem

WTF, no idea how you arrived at this bizarre conclusion.

Justin Mansfield said:

to wait for them to pass, and saw that it was two cops on quad-bikes (with on-road rego plates).
They were travelling about 30km/h and scattering peds & cyclists every which-way off the trail. I
caught up with one of them and screamed out (over the roar of his engine) "Last time I checked, you
weren't allowed to drive on this path". He basically sneered at me and said that cops could drive
anywhere they like. They seemed to be on footy duty at the

Knowing the Vic coppers, you're lucky they didn't shoot you.

Justin Mansfield said:

them and vice versa. You said in your OP that they didn't move despite your bell-ringing, but from
what you have written you apparently continued on regardless without changing your line or speed.
You went for a gap and misjudged it. Whether you hit the ped or his bag is irrelevant -- you hit
the bag with enough force to spin him around. He could have easily wrenched

Exactly. This is no different to a motorist clipping a cyclist who is part of an illegal formation
on the road (more than 2 abreast from memory?)

It's a bit rich when we as cyclists expect to be treated fairly on the road, if we aren't extending
the same courtesy to pedestrians on shared paths.

Did it occur to you that the pedestrians could have shown common courtesy & moved aside to let the
bike through? You appear to be looking at it through a pedestrians eyes only.

That's what inspired my comments.

John L.

(Jarkko Altonen) said:

John L said:

Jakko appears to be a pedestrian with an excess testosterone problem

WTF, no idea how you arrived at this bizarre conclusion.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Rman

1. Who would eat those fish ?
2. I have to agree on the fisherman thing. Duck and cover I guess. Imagine the damage to the face ?
3. My favourite obstacle on that path ? The grunge-gothic rock band trying to film a video clip next
to the path at the Glenferrie Rd underpass, and having a security guy tyring to stop us riding
pass while filming. I have never seen the clip, but I'd live to see it. Smelly guys with long
black hair and leather dacks trying to be all dark and spooky while a couple of bright lycra
warriors with flashing lights come trundling past.

That would make a great BV advertisement don't you think? Im suprised they didnt try and shoot a bit of extra footage to sell it off...
I remember that night in the tunnel. I went past when they were packing up and had no idea they were doing a video clip.

"RMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Justin Mansfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... [snip]

Quoted message said:

Talking of footy teams, I once met the Melbourne FC on a training run on

the

Quoted message said:

southern Yarra Trail just near Church St Bridge where the path is

bordered

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by a hill on one side & a guardrail on the other (i.e no way to avoid obstacles other than slow
down). Two blasts of my Air Zound soon had the swarm of joggers parting like the Red Sea. They
grumbled like hell as I

went

Quoted message said:

past, but at least they moved aside. Had they not chosen to move, what should I have done?
Continued on regardless, or slowed to a speed where

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would have been safe to stop if I was possibly going to hit one of them?

Being Melbourne FC, yelled "here comes the ball" and they would have scattered away........

LOL........that's a good one

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:55:01 GMT, Justin Mansfield <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The kangaroos are bad enough.

Quoted message said:

Richard, have you really seen kangaroos near St Kevins? I'm asking this because I once saw what I
thought were 'roo paw prints in the mud alongside the Yarra River a bit downstream from where
Gardners Creek meets it. It was a series of about 6 sets of 2 prints side-by-side, about 30-40cm
long and a few cm wide. It looked as if a 'roo had been hopping through the mud. So I'm interested
to hear if there actually are 'roos there!? Or am I just mad 🙂

There could be 'roos there, but I haven't seen any of the hopping type. A group of Hawthorn
velodrome regulars refers to kids on bikes as 'kangaroos'. The kids are just about as predictable as
kangaroos in their movements. A warning of 'kangaroos' from the front of a paceline basically means
watch out and slow down :-)

Regards, Richard.

"Richard Sherratt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:55:01 GMT, Justin Mansfield <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

[snip]

Quoted message said:

There could be 'roos there, but I haven't seen any of the hopping type. A group of Hawthorn
velodrome regulars refers to kids on bikes as 'kangaroos'. The kids are just about as predictable
as kangaroos in their movements. A warning of 'kangaroos' from the front of a paceline basically
means watch out and slow down :-)

Does any one think there is a whole lot of merit to actually lighting that velodrome (it's not
really a velodrome, but it does me) up at night. I know it's partly lit by the hockey field, but I'd
love to have a place to train at night safely.

RMan

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:14:53 +1000, "RMan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Does any one think there is a whole lot of merit to actually lighting that velodrome (it's not
really a velodrome, but it does me) up at night. I know it's partly lit by the hockey field, but
I'd love to have a place to train at night safely.

It could be useful, particularly in the winter. I can't see any problems (other than cost) and the
lighting wouldn't have to be all that bright. I wouldn't use it much at night myself, if at all, but
I do know people who train there late.

Regards, Richard.