cyclist vs pedestrian - who has right of way

Pyxis

Norman_Castle wrote: »

When I use my bell I'm often surprised by pedestrians thanking me for using a bell. The vast majority of pedestrians I meet when cycling appear to have no problems with cyclists.
Why do you stare at cyclists using a bell?

I really really wish more cyclists would ring a bell. Otherwise they are so quiet, you don't hear them coming.
On certain paths, it is quite scary.

God help us when there are loads more electric cars on the roads... they are really quiet too.

London50

takman wrote: »

So how many times have you ever done that? I'm guessing none

Then you would guess wrong, as I stated I have done it a few times in the last 5 years and without any comeback. Living around the London area there are far to many people that think they have full rights to cycle and behave just as they choose without any regards to others. As I need a walking stick when out and about ANY cyclist that rides too close has had and will have that treatment.:mad:

takman

London50 wrote: »

Then you would guess wrong, as I stated I have done it a few times in the last 5 years and without any comeback. Living around the London area there are far to many people that think they have full rights to cycle and behave just as they choose without any regards to others. As I need a walking stick when out and about ANY cyclist that rides too close has had and will have that treatment.:mad:

If you poked a walking stick through the spokes of a bike going past it would have stopped the wheel and bent the spokes (they are not very strong). There is also a good chance that the cyclist would have fallen off.


So your saying they just happily accept the damage/injuries and carry on their way?. Rubbish!


Also unless the cyclist was going very slow (which would not be hazardous to you). You would need to have very quick reactions to get it into the spokes as they come past you, considering you are resting your weight on the stick as you walk!.




What i suspect really happens is that if a cyclist is coming towards you then you might raise your stick and tap it against part of their bike, maybe their leg. They probably find it slightly annoying but it's caused no harm and it's not worth stopping.

DD265

On bridleways, the law requires cyclists to give way to horses and walkers. I am struggling to find out what the deal is for permissive paths (as I assume that's what the towpath is).

Personally I've always taken the approach of:

Horse>cyclist>runner>walker

With the view that if something is bigger or faster than me it's easiest to let it pass and set off again.

I always move my horse to one side to let people pass (regardless of cyclist/walking - I wouldn't "let" anyone run or speed past on a bike in case it startled him as that's dangerous for all of us) as we're only grazing down the bridleway these days. When I'm running or walking, I try to keep to one side so that I'm not in the way of anybody coming past faster than me. Works OK.

Norman_Castle

London50 wrote: »

As I need a walking stick when out and about ANY cyclist that rides too close has had and will have that treatment.:mad:

This suggests you are more problematic than cyclists. Being old and miserable doesn't entitle you attack people that you dislike.

London50

takman wrote: »

If you poked a walking stick through the spokes of a bike going past it would have stopped the wheel and bent the spokes (they are not very strong). There is also a good chance that the cyclist would have fallen off.


So your saying they just happily accept the damage/injuries and carry on their way?. Rubbish!


Also unless the cyclist was going very slow (which would not be hazardous to you). You would need to have very quick reactions to get it into the spokes as they come past you, considering you are resting your weight on the stick as you walk!.





What i suspect really happens is that if a cyclist is coming towards you then you might raise your stick and tap it against part of their bike, maybe their leg. They probably find it slightly annoying but it's caused no harm and it's not worth stopping.

Funnily enough I know what damage I can do {and have done} both to bike spokes and to the cyclists.You do not know me at all and are basing it on the way YOU would react.
Believe what you want, I know what I have done and will do again if need rises

Pyxis

DD265 wrote: »

On bridleways, the law requires cyclists to give way to horses and walkers. I am struggling to find out what the deal is for permissive paths (as I assume that's what the towpath is).

Personally I've always taken the approach of:

Horse>cyclist>runner>walker

With the view that if something is bigger or faster than me it's easiest to let it pass and set off again.

I always move my horse to one side to let people pass (regardless of cyclist/walking - I wouldn't "let" anyone run or speed past on a bike in case it startled him as that's dangerous for all of us) as we're only grazing down the bridleway these days. When I'm running or walking, I try to keep to one side so that I'm not in the way of anybody coming past faster than me. Works OK.

Yes, I think the rule is that wheels give way to legs. Makes sense, really.
Powered wheels give way to unpowered wheels.

Not sure about the number of legs!
Though I might suspect that a tall, four-legged thing would give way to a short, two-legged one!


As regards the stick in the spokes, I'm no lawyer, but I might suggest that that could be construed as assault, and any damage ensuing might be considered to be criminal damage. That's quite apart from any potential damage to the cyclist if he comes off.

London50

Pyxis wrote: »

Yes, I think the rule is that wheels give way to legs. Makes sense, really.
Powered wheels give way to unpowered wheels.

Not sure about the number of legs!
Though I might suspect that a tall, four-legged thing would give way to a short, two-legged one!


As regards the stick in the spokes, I'm no lawyer, but I might suggest that that could be construed as assault, and any damage ensuing might be considered to be criminal damage. That's quite apart from any potential damage to the cyclist if he comes off.

I do agree with you about assault but I feel that there is far more chance of them {and it is only the odd one} doing damage to me by hitting me on their bike so it works both ways.
I do not seek out people riding bikes to attack them in any way but if I am out walking and they have plenty of space to pass yet choose to try to run into me I will react in a way I think is correct.
As you get older you are not as quick on your feet and why should I risk being injured when there is plenty of room for both myself and the bike rider to pass without causing damage or conflict between us.:)

ARandomMiser

jondav wrote: »

This bit got me though......surely that is what the bell on a bike is for?!

I have no issue with them giving a little ring to let us know they are there and coming past. It is when they aggressively ring it expecting me to step off the path and make way for them (sometimes they seem to want me to step in the flower beds at the side of the path) ... or because they want to over take another cyclist who is in the cycle lane and expect us to make extra room for them (as we walk on the pedestrian part of the path).

Like everything there is a small minority of cyclists who end up giving the less selfish ones a bad name.

takman

London50 wrote: »

I do agree with you about assault but I feel that there is far more chance of them {and it is only the odd one} doing damage to me by hitting me on their bike so it works both ways.
I do not seek out people riding bikes to attack them in any way but if I am out walking and they have plenty of space to pass yet choose to try to run into me I will react in a way I think is correct.
As you get older you are not as quick on your feet and why should I risk being injured when there is plenty of room for both myself and the bike rider to pass without causing damage or conflict between us.:)

Well if you have done what you say then that statement is false. You have caused damage and injury to cyclists and yet you have never said that one has hit you. So you are the one more likely to cause damage and injury because that has actually happened due to your actions.


So using your logic everytime a cyclist goes past you too close they should knock you off your feet so you don't get a chance to injure them. Which is just as bad as what you are doing.