Cycling vs walkers in country parks

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

So you admit you would happily cycle into a pedestrian who wouldn't move out of your way when you are cycling on a footpath, and you wonder why people take issue with cyclists?

I'd happily stick to the side of the path and keep cycling slowly if a group was taking up the whole of a shared path and they had seen me.
If they decide not to move out the way and share the path then it's them who has made the decision to walk into me.

If i stop on the path they still have to walk around me to avoid walking into me so what's the difference if i'm cycling slowly?
What;'s the difference if i dismount from my bike and walk beside it? They'll have to move in all these scenarios if i'm walking, cycling or stood still on the path.

MABLE

I am amazed at the amount of cyclists I find who do not know the highway code in particular what side of the road they should be cycling on. I am even more amazed too at the amount of drivers who will just ignore a cyclist who signals his/her intention is to turn right and the driver just overtakes them.

I cycle, walk and drive so I see it from all sides.

MABLE

Altarf wrote: »

And considerate cyclists would not blat along paths expecting everyone to get out of their way.

We can hope.

I witnessed this type of thing yesterday by this old guy on his cycle shouting at everyone to move out the way. It made me ashamed to be a cyclist.

Norman_Castle

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'd happily stick to the side of the path and keep cycling slowly if a group was taking up the whole of a shared path and they had seen me.
If they decide not to move out the way and share the path then it's them who has made the decision to walk into me.

If i stop on the path they still have to walk around me to avoid walking into me so what's the difference if i'm cycling slowly?
What;'s the difference if i dismount from my bike and walk beside it? They'll have to move in all these scenarios if i'm walking, cycling or stood still on the path.

I would stop which I'm sure I have done in this situation in the past. The can't walk over me so they have to walk around. I don't care if I stop. They think they've achieved something, I think they're gormless.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'd happily stick to the side of the path and keep cycling slowly if a group was taking up the whole of a shared path and they had seen me.
If they decide not to move out the way and share the path then it's them who has made the decision to walk into me.

If i stop on the path they still have to walk around me to avoid walking into me so what's the difference if i'm cycling slowly?
What;'s the difference if i dismount from my bike and walk beside it? They'll have to move in all these scenarios if i'm walking, cycling or stood still on the path.

The difference is you displayed the usual cyclist attitude of pedestrians should get out of the way on a footpath or cyclists will ride into them.

Rosemary7391

Altarf wrote: »

The difference is you displayed the usual cyclist attitude of pedestrians should get out of the way on a footpath or cyclists will ride into them.

If you come to a complete halt you're also making it very clear that you've seen them and done everything possible to avoid a collision (which is generally a good idea no matter what your mode of transport). If they still walk into you then that's on them.

Enterprise_1701C

Close to where I live there is a split path (one side pedestrians, one side cyclists). I was riding on the cycle side when a teenager decided to prove he was a big man to his girlfriend. He stood in the middle of the cycle side intentionally blocking it when there was a pack of college kids on the pedestrian side. I stopped and waited for what was to come, he shouted something like what are you doing on the path, I pointed to the picture of the bike he was standing near, he shouted that does not mean you can ride your bike on the footpath, by this time he had the attention of the college kids who could not quite decide whether he was an idiot or an icon. I simply waited a minute or two by which time he had decided to prove himself and went to talk to the college kids saying how right he was, I simply carried on down the cycle path. His girlfriend had by this time continued walking to college.

Not sure if he was trying to prove he was an idiot or what, but when kids of that age always assume they are right, then what can we do, there needs to be some education about road (and path) use in school, it needs to be made clear where bikes can go and that cycle paths are in fact cycle paths.

I have to admit we have quite a few cycle paths round here, but what amazes me is that when a cycle path is part of a road there is nothing to stop cars parking on it!

Norman_Castle

Altarf wrote: »

The difference is you displayed the usual cyclist attitude of pedestrians should get out of the way on a footpath or cyclists will ride into them.

Retrogamers suggestion that he would ride into pedestrians is not the "usual attitude" of cyclists. You're displaying your usual attitude of condemning cyclists wherever possible.

esuhl

I think part of the problem is that people aren't used to seeing cyclists. There aren't enough of them for people to anticipate their presence.

Whereas everyone owns a car. No one is surprised that some drivers behave badly. No one is shocked when a car passes a metre away at 50 mph, because they expect cars on the road to be moving fast. Ride a bike in the same way, and people are outraged!

The funny thing is that cyclists have much better visibility, travel at much lower speeds, have far less momentum, and serious injuries and deaths are almost unheard of... unless there's a motorist involved.

But if you drive in wet conditions at 134mph, and at 100mph through roadworks, you can get off with a slap on the wrist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40708660

That's much, much worse than "blatting along a canal path at 15 mph".

There's a huge bias against cyclists in this country. Yet motorists can behave as recklessly as they like and get away with it.

Altarf

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Retrogamers suggestion that he would ride into pedestrians is not the "usual attitude" of cyclists. You're displaying your usual attitude of condemning cyclists wherever possible.

It is obviously the usual attitude of one cyclist when they say -

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'd keep cycling at a slow pace without stopping.