Can cyclists answer me why??

Marco_Panettone

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I was on a divided (only by white lines) cycle path/footpath. There was a prat who wanted to show off to his girlfriend. He decided to step out in front of me and confront me, telling me I should not be riding on the footpath. I pointed out that he was in fact standing on the cycle path. I then moved off as quickly as I could. It was only a little later that I realised that I had only managed to stop because I had been watching him mess about and generally try to show off at every opportunity. If I had not been watching him I would not have been able to stop because he stepped right in front of me. I realise this would have been classed as my fault, but it would really have been his fault because he was being an idiot. There is CCTV covering that stretch so I may well have been able to argue my point.

Unfortunately it is generally the cyclist that bears the brunt of responsibility even when there is a real idiot around.

Not quite - it would've ACYUALLY have been your fault. If you are travelling at a speed where you cannot stop safely if something fairly predictable happens it is your fault. This is why cyclists need to pass pedestrians slowly and carefully and give them enough space to do something 'unexpected'. It's the same with drivers passing cyclists, and anyone passing horses. You can only ever be responsible for your own actions, so be responsible and ensure you don't put anyone else in danger (even if they're an idiot).

Give the more vulnerable user more space when you pass them. Not rocket science, is it?

Avoriaz

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Not quite - it would've ACYUALLY have been your fault. If you are travelling at a speed where you cannot stop safely if something fairly predictable happens it is your fault. This is why cyclists need to pass pedestrians slowly and carefully and give them enough space to do something 'unexpected'. It's the same with drivers passing cyclists, and anyone passing horses. You can only ever be responsible for your own actions, so be responsible and ensure you don't put anyone else in danger (even if they're an idiot).

Give the more vulnerable user more space when you pass them. Not rocket science, is it?

It would not have been his fault.

Read the post carefully.

It would have been the fault of the man who saw the cyclist and deliberately chose to step into the cyclists path.

Hanky_Panky

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

Where I am, Porthcawl sea side town south wales, we haven't really got the city problem. Dangerous enough though.

Where I'm originally from, Newport, south wales, the thought of cycling around that place would terriify me.

A woman from Gwent with 'Scarlet' in her user name - hang your head in shame

custardy

brat wrote: »

Such responsibilities are not so well defined as those on the road, but I'd suggest that the person bringing the greater speed differential into a situation shoulders the greater responsibility. Whether the faster person and slower person are approaching each other or one is approaching the other from behind will make a difference to the proportions of responsibility too.

So if I'm cycling at 20mph on a shared cyclepath and I overtake a cyclist at 10mph, a jogger at 6mph or a pedestrian at three mph, it's my reponsibility to make that manoeuvre as safe as I can. That would normally mean that I should make the slower person aware of my approach.

If I'm out for a run at 9mph and I pass a cyclist doing 7 mph or a jogger at 6mph, again the major responsibility for safety is mine.

But, as esuhl says, such encounters mean that the only way a road cyclist can safely and responsibly negotiate such busy paths is slowly, so it's often safer and more convenient to use the road.



Perhaps we could see that on streetview?

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=opera&q=jewel+edinburgh&oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&ei=CU2nUoa5FsPwhQeL_YCYCA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

plenty the same around
this is a shared use path(with a horrible end,but thats another story)
Where Woolworths is on the pic,a new Range store has opened.
people are always walking out various points in the hedge
Its high enough you cant see them

brat

custardy wrote: »

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=opera&q=jewel+edinburgh&oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&ei=CU2nUoa5FsPwhQeL_YCYCA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

plenty the same around
this is a shared use path(with a horrible end,but thats another story)
Where Woolworths is on the pic,a new Range store has opened.
people are always walking out various points in the hedge
Its high enough you cant see them

And what happens? Are there lots of accidents?
Either way, I believe the person carrying the greatest speed carries the lion's share of responsibility. That will usually be the cyclist, even if the pedestrian steps out from behind a hedge.

custardy

brat wrote: »

And what happens? Are there lots of accidents?
Either way, I believe the person carrying the greatest speed carries the lion's share of responsibility. That will usually be the cyclist, even if the pedestrian steps out from behind a hedge.

I dont know. had a couple of near misses myself,but Im not along that way often.
So what shall a cyclist do? You cant even see most of the gaps until you are on them

Marco_Panettone

Avoriaz wrote: »

It would not have been his fault.

Read the post carefully.

It would have been the fault of the man who saw the cyclist and deliberately chose to step into the cyclists path.

I did read it carefully. There wasn't a collision because the rider was taking appropriate care (as they should), despite the deliberate actions of the other party.

brat

custardy wrote: »

I dont know. had a couple of near misses myself,but Im not along that way often.
So what shall a cyclist do? You cant even see most of the gaps until you are on them

If a cyclist is going to rattle along there at any sort of pace, he needs to be making pedestrians aware of his presence by a bell warning. Otherwise he needs to be slow enough to avoid an impact.

esuhl

brat wrote: »

If a cyclist is going to rattle along there at any sort of pace, he needs to be making pedestrians aware of his presence by a bell warning. Otherwise he needs to be slow enough to avoid an impact.

So on long straight, downhill, segregated cycle path with (what appears to be) a thick, solid hedge along the side, you should ride at 5mph sounding your bell constantly...? What's the point of a cycle path if you have to ride at a walking pace?!

It's okay if you know the path well, but even with my heavy mountain bike I can average 15mph on the road. If using cycle paths is going to triple my journey time -- a with a 2 hour ride to the shops and back taking 6 hours -- well... It's a long journey and I've done it a few times, but I don't have every blind entrance committed to memory.

It's safer using the road... which has been made more dangerous as it's been narrowed to put in the cycle path...

You'd think they could paint warnings on the path -- a "give way" stop line or something...

esuhl

brat wrote: »

Perhaps we could see that on streetview?

Well, I can't find the one I was referring to, but here's another example. The cycle path is furthest from the road, and the view from the Google car gives is much better than you'd have on a bike. The adjacent stairs and ramp from the car park behind the hedge (adjacent to each other) join the cycle path to the right, without any warning.

Sure, with the vantage point of the Google car, you can see the brickwork if you look carefully... but just put yourself in the position of a cyclist looking out for obstacles in the path ahead. You wouldn't expect a footpath to join an apparently "clear" cycle-path without warning.



If you cycle reasonable distances, you need to be able to maintain a relatively decent speed otherwise the whole exercise becomes pointless. And, in the midst of the countryside, with no pedestrians in visible range, why should you be unable to travel at a whopping 15mph just because dedicated cycle paths have been designed with a walking-pace in mind?!

The whole issue could be solved with a few dabs of white paint.