Psycotic pedestrian

David Lloyd said:

Finally got to go out on the club run on Sunday. This was my first
group ride for quite a few years and had been delayed by my five weeks
off with the broken collar bone, a cold and resulting bad chest, and
finally it was pissing down last Sunday. The first thing that struck
me was that we rode single file for most of the time, rather than in
just in restricted spaces, only going two abreast on wider, quieter
country lanes.

One thing that has changed is the invension of the shared pedestrian
and cycle path. This was obviously not a route frequently used by the
other club members, as they were taken by suprise by the closure of a
junction, which had been replaced by a crossing on a main road, marked
up as a shared use path. The road we wanted to take was a country
lane, on the other side of the main road, so we needed to use the
shared path.

We slowed to a crawl, rode single file and stayed to the left as we
crossed the main road, noticing that the was a couple with a dog on
the other side of the road. As we reached the other side, the lady
held the dog and stayed to the other side, as would be expected.
However, as our lead rider reached them, the man side-steps straight
into his path, forcing him to brake, unclip and stop. The walker then
starts a foul-mouth slagging off of the guys for riding on the path
because they were being inconciderate of health and safety. By the
looks of him, he wouldn't have known health if it bit him, and he was
the one who endangered the safety of himself and our front guy. The
signs were pointed out to him, in a not very polite manner, to which
he said he couldn't read (which I don't believe for a second). Duh,
the signs are pictures.

As a group, pedestrians have never had to obey signs or share
facilities with other travellers. Shared paths hinder the safety of
both pedestians and cyclists. Despite the particularly dim-wittedness
of the walker in the above example, I can't say that it was his fault.
The fault lies with the planners who force these schemes on us.

David Lloyd

I agree that these schemes are a pretty second-rate attempt to provide a
safe environment for cyclists and pedestrians. But I will poke my head
above the edge of the bunker and say that most people are guilty of a
lack of consideration these days. We are all unwilling to share the bit
of space that we perceive to be our own, whether we are a car driver, a
cyclist or a pedestrian.

Bearing in mind that the millions required to create safe and sensible
cycle lanes is never going to materialise, I guess these schemes are the
best that we are likely to get. I really don't know what the answer is
except for us all to bite our lips and to try to get along.

Brian.

David Lloyd said:

Finally got to go out on the club run on Sunday. ........

Quoted message said:

One thing that has changed is the invension of the shared pedestrian
and cycle path. This was obviously not a route frequently used by the
other club members, as they were taken by suprise by the closure of a
junction, which had been replaced by a crossing on a main road, marked
up as a shared use path. The road we wanted to take was a country
lane, on the other side of the main road, so we needed to use the
shared path..................

Quoted message said:

As a group, pedestrians have never had to obey signs or share
facilities with other travellers. Shared paths hinder the safety of
both pedestians and cyclists. Despite the particularly dim-wittedness
of the walker in the above example, I can't say that it was his fault.
The fault lies with the planners who force these schemes on us.

Lesson - cycle farcilities are optional. The Highway Code makes this clear.
If in doubt and an experienced rider, use the road instead, particularly a
group of riders on a Sunday when traffic should be quieter.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Nigel Cliffe said:

Lesson - cycle farcilities are optional. The Highway Code makes this clear.
If in doubt and an experienced rider, use the road instead, particularly a
group of riders on a Sunday when traffic should be quieter.

- Nigel

Yes, I do understand this, but in this case it was the only practical
solution. Where a proper road junction had existed in the past, there
was the shared path in its place, crossing the main road. The country
lane was nolonger accessable by motor vehicles at this point. The new
layout for the road that we were coming from, took the road around a
new apartment development, and up to a roundabout. We would have had
to ride down the road that we wanted to cross, and taken to the shared
path anyway.

David Lloyd

David Lloyd said the following on 05/11/2007 09:33:

Quoted message said:

The fault lies with the planners who force these schemes on us.

They're not forced on you - you don't have to use them. The key word is
"shared", but unfortunately many people, cyclists as well as peds and
motorists, don't seem to understand the concept of sharing. I think it
comes down to the "me" society we seem to be breeding (Jeez - I sound
about 90!). Your ped is obviously one of those plonkers.

I use shared and segregated paths on my commute, and to be honest my
biggest problem isn't peds but other cyclists who insist on riding
towards me on their right. Well, apart from the peds who politely stand
to one side, whilst their mutt furkles about on the other side, with an
invisible lead stretched across the path.....

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

David Lloyd said:

As a group, pedestrians have never had to obey signs or share
facilities with other travellers. Shared paths hinder the safety of
both pedestians and cyclists. Despite the particularly dim-wittedness
of the walker in the above example, I can't say that it was his fault.
The fault lies with the planners who force these schemes on us.

Lucky you got out of such a dangerous situation with your life.

I was watching a clip on TV of a cyclist in Japan ride though a busy
pedestrian area. From the look of it neither he nor the pedestrians
understood the extreme danger they faced.

Perhaps Bone could be convinced to take up the cause?

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd

Nick said:

Perhaps Bone could be convinced to take up the cause?

ROFLMAO :-)

David Lloyd

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

David Lloyd said the following on 05/11/2007 09:33:

Quoted message said:

The fault lies with the planners who force these schemes on us.

They're not forced on you - you don't have to use them. The key word is
"shared", but unfortunately many people, cyclists as well as peds and
motorists, don't seem to understand the concept of sharing. I think it
comes down to the "me" society we seem to be breeding (Jeez - I sound
about 90!). Your ped is obviously one of those plonkers.

I use shared and segregated paths on my commute, and to be honest my
biggest problem isn't peds but other cyclists who insist on riding
towards me on their right. Well, apart from the peds who politely stand
to one side, whilst their mutt furkles about on the other side, with an
invisible lead stretched across the path.....

--
Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

As it is, I can think of a much better layout which would have
preserved the rights of both cyclists and pedestrians, and not have
put us in conflict in the first place. As this had been a road
junction, the space would have been available to make a pedestrian
crossing and two lanes for cycle traffic to cross on the level of the
road surface. It seems apparent to me that the planners just designed
a foot crossing and simply slapped up a couple of shared use signs,
and called it job done.

David Lloyd

Paul Boyd said:

I use shared and segregated paths on my commute, and to be honest my
biggest problem isn't peds but other cyclists who insist on riding
towards me on their right. Well, apart from the peds who politely stand
to one side, whilst their mutt furkles about on the other side, with an
invisible lead stretched across the path.....

I don't use share that often now, but I did Bristol to Bath and back
last week. I saw a couple of peds see me coming, with me slowing down,
and they politely stepped out of my way, straight into the path of a
cyclist coming the other way.

Martin.

Martin Dann said:

Paul Boyd said:

I use shared and segregated paths on my commute, and to be honest my
biggest problem isn't peds but other cyclists who insist on riding
towards me on their right. Well, apart from the peds who politely stand
to one side, whilst their mutt furkles about on the other side, with an
invisible lead stretched across the path.....

I don't use share that often now, but I did Bristol to Bath and back
last week. I saw a couple of peds see me coming, with me slowing down,
and they politely stepped out of my way, straight into the path of a
cyclist coming the other way.

Martin.

You see, they never had to keep an eye out before the invension of
shared use paths. There is just not the culture nor experience of
sharing, and this is the result. The other rider should have done more
to alert them to his approach. Unfortunately, the riders of the POB
kind aren't readily educated, as the issue is an irrelevance to them.

David Lloyd

David Lloyd said:

As it is, I can think of a much better layout which would have
preserved the rights of both cyclists and pedestrians, and not have
put us in conflict in the first place. As this had been a road
junction, the space would have been available to make a pedestrian
crossing and two lanes for cycle traffic to cross on the level of the
road surface.

IME this wouldn't be any better. I know of two examples where parallel
pedestrian and cyclist routes have been provided, about 10 yards
apart, and in both cases, at leat half the pedestrians choose the
cycle path rather than the footpath. Cyclists have a choice of cycling
legally on a crowded cycle path, or illegally on a quiet footpath.
(Both these tracks are in situations like the OP's, where the road
alternative is longer and unattractive.)

I don't think the peds even realise they are on a cycle track. Apart
from eroded painted signs, the cycle tracks look exactly like
footpaths. Unless the cycling equivalent of motorways are introduced,
where peds are banned, I think we will always find them on cycle
paths. If the space is available, I think very wide shared facilities
are better, as this gives you more chance of avoiding the peds.

Rob

In article <[email hidden]>, David
Lloyd
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You see, they never had to keep an eye out before the invension of
shared use paths. There is just not the culture nor experience of
sharing, and this is the result.

I find that I do the 'lifesaver' rearward glance whether I'm driving,
cycling or walking - it just makes sense

David Lloyd said:

You see, they never had to keep an eye out before the invension of
shared use paths. There is just not the culture nor experience of
sharing, and this is the result.

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd

They did, back when most of the road network consisted of fairly
narrow routes shared by peds, cyclists, horse-drawn traffic and herds.

Jon

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

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd said:

You see, they never had to keep an eye out before the invension of
shared use paths. There is just not the culture nor experience of
sharing, and this is the result.

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd

They did, back when most of the road network consisted of fairly
narrow routes shared by peds, cyclists, horse-drawn traffic and herds.

Jon

Then the car comes along and ruins it all! ;-P

David Lloyd

On 05/11/2007 17:11, Rob Morley said,

Quoted message said:

I find that I do the 'lifesaver' rearward glance whether I'm driving,
cycling or walking - it just makes sense

That's how you can tell cyclists or motorcyclists in supermarkets -
they're the ones who look over their shoulder before pulling their
trolley out. The car drivers drive their trolleys like their cars :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd has brought this to us :

Quoted message said:

That's how you can tell cyclists or motorcyclists in supermarkets - they're
the ones who look over their shoulder before pulling their trolley out. The
car drivers drive their trolleys like their cars :-)

I'd never *dare* make a comment about driving ability, but why *is* it
that women are so totally incapable of controlling a supermarket
trolley in a responsible manner? :oÞ

(Retires to a safe distance...)

--
Simon

Simon D said:

I'd never *dare* make a comment about driving ability, but why *is* it
that women are so totally incapable of controlling a supermarket
trolley in a responsible manner? :oÞ

And they always "park" 3' from the shelves, so no-one can get a trolley
past in the aisle.

Quoted message said:

(Retires to a safe distance...)

(joins Simon)

--
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

Simon D said:

Paul Boyd has brought this to us :

Quoted message said:

That's how you can tell cyclists or motorcyclists in supermarkets -
they're the ones who look over their shoulder before pulling their
trolley out. The car drivers drive their trolleys like their cars :-)

I'd never *dare* make a comment about driving ability, but why *is* it
that women are so totally incapable of controlling a supermarket trolley
in a responsible manner? :oÞ

(Retires to a safe distance...)

It is because they are thinking about what to buy, what they want for
tea, what flavour tea they want, that they completely forget that they
are pushing a trolley around. (so much for being better at multitasking).

I have had in the past a woman stop three feet in front of my trolley,
then walk backwards into my trolley and think it was my fault.

Martin.

Quoting Paul Boyd <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

That's how you can tell cyclists or motorcyclists in supermarkets -
they're the ones who look over their shoulder before pulling their
trolley out.

Speak for yourself. When I get a trolley I like to pretend I'm an OGRE
Mark V and aren't planning on stopping for anything smaller than a city.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Stilday, October - a weekend.

Danny Colyer said the following on 05/11/2007 23:32:

Quoted message said:

And they always "park" 3' from the shelves, so no-one can get a trolley
past in the aisle.

Or walk down the middle of the aisle then drag the trolley around so
they can reach the shelf, with the trolley now sideways across the aisle...

(There's a crowd forming!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/