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

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?"

 

"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.

 

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]

 

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.

 

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?"

 

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.