The Sydney Morning Herald sticks it up rude and impatient cyclists (and about time!)

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc archive' started by Politically Inc, Mar 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sorry for bursting the pride of the rude and impatient cyclists out there, but check out the
    following article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 March 2003:

    http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540068824.html

    For those reluctant to click the link, the following extract will be of benefit...

    "But even a swarm of Serious Runners would be no match for the warships of the walkway, the lions of
    the joggers' jungle - cyclists and pram-pushers.

    Not sufficient is it for them to take to the pavement with speed or numbers on their side, they rely
    on the unassailable authority of equipment. How often have I heard the impatient trill of a bike
    bell from behind, urging me to step off the footpath (and onto the cycle path instead)? Who would
    dare question the moral superiority of the parent-pram alliance and not yield at once?"
     
    Tags:


  2. Elyob

    Elyob Guest

    "Politically incorrect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sorry for bursting the pride of the rude and impatient cyclists out there, but check out the
    > following article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 March 2003:
    >
    > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540068824.html
    >
    > For those reluctant to click the link, the following extract will be of benefit...
    >
    > "But even a swarm of Serious Runners would be no match for the warships of the walkway, the lions
    > of the joggers' jungle - cyclists and pram-pushers.
    >
    > Not sufficient is it for them to take to the pavement with speed or numbers on their side, they
    > rely on the unassailable authority of equipment. How often have I heard the impatient trill of a
    > bike bell from behind, urging me to step off the footpath (and onto the cycle path instead)? Who
    > would dare question the moral superiority of the parent-pram alliance and not yield at once?"

    I'm both a pedestrian, jogger and cyclist ... I find that the article is just a rant. Okay, the
    difference is that I will hold my place on the pavement, if a cyclist is coming towards me (which is
    against the law here). Being a tall, heavy set male this gives me an advantage over the majority.
    Whilst on a mixed cycle path, I use a bell to give advice of my approach from behind. I have no
    problem doing this. It is a shared path and pedestrians should also treat it as such. It took me 4
    years to buy a bell, as I hate them. Now i'm OLD, I can have one on my bike ;)

    Everyone has their different journey each day, but I find that pedestrians vs pedestrians is just as
    bad. If someone stops on a crowded street without checking or making any indication of their
    intentions, I WILL walk into them.

    Personally, she needs to go on an 'assertive walking' course, and learn how to treat other users. As
    for cycles on the pavement, do you stop them and ask them to push? If not, you're also part of the
    problem. Personally, I don't care, as long as they are not creating a danger to others ... so do the
    police IMO.
     
  3. Politically incorrect wrote:
    >
    > Sorry for bursting the pride of the rude and impatient cyclists out there, but check out the
    > following article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 March 2003: ...

    Ho hum. Yet another gripe by an easily-annoyed whiner.

    Perhaps we should send condolences? "Oh, poor dear! Sorry that you have to endure the tinkle of
    bicycle bells. And - horrors! - parents pushing their children in prams! Your life must be
    wretched, indeed."

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  4. Lighten up, guys...Ms Danielle had her tongue firmly in cheek when she wrote the piece...it's fluff,
    not meant to be taken seriously.

    :)
     
  5. Frank Burke

    Frank Burke Guest

    This inspires a few observations.

    1) Multi-use paths are generally unsafe for all but the most casual leisure bike riding. If you
    haven't yet enountered the roller-blader, insolated from the world by a Walkman, pushing a baby
    stroller, while walking a Rottweiler on an invisible 50-foot leash, you will. Ironically,
    Pennsylvania law used to make it mandatory to use a bike path, rather than a parallel road, if
    one is available (I was stopped by the police and threatened with a citation several times for
    violating this provision). Fortunately, this has since been dropped from the code.

    2) Serious cyclists should avoid multi-use paths because of the danger it creates for all users. I
    was in DC last year, and went with a friend for a ride on the W&OD trail (He was recovering from
    an illness, relagating him to the "casual leisure" category). I was amazed by how fast some
    people were riding, hammering along without apparent regard to pedestrian traffic congestion. It
    struck me that this must be frustrating for the cyclist, but, at a minimum, it must create a
    great deal of animosity toward cyclists, as exemplified the Syndey article.

    3) In Pennsylvania, pedestrians have right-of-way and cyclists must give an "audible signal" before
    passing. Here's the relevant section of the state vehicle code: "Right-of-way to pedestrians.-- A
    person riding a pedalcycle upon a sidewalk or pedalcycle path used by pedestrians shall yield the
    right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a
    pedestrian."

    Politically incorrect wrote:
    >
    > Sorry for bursting the pride of the rude and impatient cyclists out there, but check out the
    > following article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 March 2003:
    >
    > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540068824.html
    >
    > For those reluctant to click the link, the following extract will be of benefit...
    >
    > "But even a swarm of Serious Runners would be no match for the warships of the walkway, the lions
    > of the joggers' jungle - cyclists and pram-pushers.
    >
    > Not sufficient is it for them to take to the pavement with speed or numbers on their side, they
    > rely on the unassailable authority of equipment. How often have I heard the impatient trill of a
    > bike bell from behind, urging me to step off the footpath (and onto the cycle path instead)? Who
    > would dare question the moral superiority of the parent-pram alliance and not yield at once?"
     
  6. Baka Dasai

    Baka Dasai Guest

    On 3 Mar 2003 01:37:20 -0800, Politically incorrect said (and I quote):
    > Sorry for bursting the pride of the rude and impatient cyclists out there, but check out the
    > following article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 March 2003:
    >
    > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540068824.html

    I read the article on the day it was published. It is part of a daily feature where "ordinary"
    readers can have an opinion piece published. It's usually a tired rant dressed up as "humour", and
    this one is a perfect example of the genre.

    However the complaints about cyclists on the footpaths are unlikely to burst the pride of most
    people in this group, who prefer to ride on the road. In fact, riding on the footpath is illegal in
    NSW (the state in which the Sydney Morning Herald is published). I couldn't find anything to
    disagree with in the article other than the fact that it was a lame and boring piece of writing.
    --
    Baka Dasai I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...