Pedestrians vs bikes and a sense of self entitlement?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 45 of 45
  1. #1
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749

    Pedestrians vs bikes and a sense of self entitlement?

    Throughout the campus here, there is a network of pedestrian and cycling paths that sprawl over a good part of the campus. Where the cycling paths end, there are bike lanes. Getting around the campus is pretty friendly for bikes, pedestrians and even cars. I often find myself on the campus since it is such a nice place to ride through most of the year. There are several very old buildings to see, along with a nice river and the feel of a well established university. This university recognized that there are a lot of people walking and lots of students on bikes, so they did a pretty good job designing a network of sidewalks, paths and cycling only paths that help split everything up to keep things moving and people safe. I mentioned this in another thread, and was accused of having a sense of self entitlement when I spoke of pedestrians using the cycling paths even though they are specifically marked as cycling paths and not for pedestrians. I was told to contact the campus police and file a complaint. I was told to slow down. I was told that I am impatient with pedestrians. I was told that I have an entitled attitude.

    I would like to present you all with the pictures taken today, on a Sunday, down on the campus.

    These are prominent at any intersection where the pedestrian sidewalk crosses the bike only path. Both paths run together at this point because the football stadium is to the left. This helps to ease foot traffic both coming and going from a home game. I can understand this. They are however clearly marked as you can see, and the bike path has a lane just like a road and is clearly a different color.



    Every hundred feet or so, the bike only path is marked as such. It is very clear that this is for bikes only, and not pedestrians. This was taken a little further west of the stadium. The pedestrian path is adjacent to the bike only path.



    This is a VERY common sight on the campus. He saw me as I had stopped and gotten off my bike before he got to me. I was setting up to take a picture. He had his headphones in, and continued on the path completely oblivious to the fact that he was on the wrong side. I was sure to check the path for oncoming cyclists, and you will notice that I am standing in the oncoming lane so that if one did come I would see it and vacate the path for them to pass. The worst part about this is that the pedestrian path is to the left less than 10 feet away.



    Not 2 minutes later, a woman walked by, on the correct path, as shown in the picture. Headphone guy still oblivious to his surroundings further up the path. Even if a cyclist called out to him, he more than likely would not hear them.



    Now, I don't know about anyone else, but to me the paths look pretty well marked. Pedestrians crossed out, and arrows telling cyclists which side to ride on. It is clear as day for me. Warning signs at intersections where the paths may cross. They did a pretty good job of laying this out and marking it. I don't feel like getting pissed at pedestrians who CLEARLY ignore the signs and just walk where they want to gives me a sense of entitlement. Headphone guy might have gotten semi buzzed as I went by because he was still walking on the bike only path further up.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,321
    Looks like really nice infrastructure. Too bad that people are stupid.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    460
    Looks like you are right and ppl are stupid. BTW, what school is that?

  4. #4
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Straz85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,348
    So there's a clearly posted rule that pedestrians aren't allowed, you're following the rules, they're not and YOU'RE the one who is entitled? I would say the people who feel as though it's okay for them to break the rules are the entitled ones. But you're on a bike, so you're automatically wrong. That seems to be the general sentiment in the US.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,741
    It's really weird to see any sort of infrastructure reserved for bikes.

    Like completely alien.

    Cyclists are, by law, secondary users who "must yield" everywhere I've ridden. Even on-street bike lanes (the few not blocked my parked cars) require yielding to pedestrians if they happen to be there.

    And there are several places in the city where a "bike path" and a much wider pedestrian-only walkway are side-by-side, and bicycles are of course still required to yield to pedestrians should they choose to walk on the bike path.

    It doesn't really bother me, but perhaps my expectations have been lowered too much over the years.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    173
    I wish the multiuse paths in my area had 2 way traffic. It would prevent a lot of close calls. Governments here have to realize bike as a transports can be a viable and cheap alternative for all. We just need the patsh.

  8. #8
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Straz85 View Post
    So there's a clearly posted rule that pedestrians aren't allowed, you're following the rules, they're not and YOU'RE the one who is entitled? I would say the people who feel as though it's okay for them to break the rules are the entitled ones. But you're on a bike, so you're automatically wrong. That seems to be the general sentiment in the US.
    I was told that by another member of this forum in the commuting section. I was hoping that he/she would give us their thoughts on this but they have not so far.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    726
    Hell yes that looks awesome! I wish UGA would implement something like this. Would you mind taking a few more pictures of this and similar infrastructure you see on campus so that I might present it to the planning commission at the next session?

  10. #10
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Sure thing! For most of the layout - this is how it looks. I don't know how many miles exactly it is and if there are multiple paths like this so I will have to do some exploring to find out. The path is really nice when used correctly. I find that getting across the campus on this particular one is rather quick if there are no pedestrians. Cyclists that do use it for the most part use it correctly, and don't use the pedestrian path.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,321
    One other thing to remember is that since this is a university campus, I'm sure that a surprisingly huge portion of the population is trying to be very conspicuously rebellious and non-conformist. "Lines are a tool of our capitalist oppressors" et al.

    Thinking about it, a campus is just about the worst place to waste nice infrastructure like that.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Oh jeez. I agreed with you that peds. should not walk in a marked bike lane. You're sense of entitlement is this: you stated that you buzz peds. walking in the bike only lane because they don't belong there. *edit: You admit again to intentionally buzzing people, good job*. The entitlement comes with the buzzing. The fact remains, as was stated above, bicycles must yield to peds, and pass them with safety and care, no matter where they appear. All users of vehicles have a duty to avoid collisions with any other vehicle or pedestrian. Intentionally buzzing a ped. because they are in the wrong is callous, selfish, discourteous, and entitled. It's exactly parallel to a motorist buzzing a cyclist on the road, because the motorist thinks they don't belong there.

    In the picture you showed with the ped. in the bike lane: where's the problem? There is so much room to announce yourself, slow down, and pass with care. If it really upsets you, maybe, politely remind the peds. that they're walking in a bike only lane? Don't buzz the person. They're just trying to get where they're going. It's not some pedestrian conspiracy to ruin your day.

    Here's the short response: intentionally riding your bike at an unsuspecting person to intimidate them is ****ed. Stop doing it.

  13. #13
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,752
    It's really weird to see any sort of infrastructure reserved for bikes.

    Like completely alien.
    Honestly, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I've never had the good fortune to ride in a bike only infrastructure and have the chance to feel entitled.

    I'd chalk up the ped in bike lane behavior, 80% to being oblivious (headphone people.... ) and 20% to giving a finger to the man.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    In areas where motor traffic is removed and bike/ped traffic is allowed, a totally different type of riding is required. Pedestrian traffic is the least predictable. It takes a different mindset. Instead of 'this space is mine' it needs to be 'this space is ours'; free of the dangers of fast moving vehicles. The problem is as much your mindset as that of pedestrians.

    Peds see that lane as a calm place to walk, free of the threat of motorized vehicles. You see it as your personal freeway through an area filled with unpredictable people. It's amazing how stress melts away when the notion of 'this is mine, that is yours' is replaced with 'this is ours, let's all get where we're going safely and enjoy the landscape and presence of human beings without the threat of motorized vehicles.'

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,321
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    You didn't mention that part in your backstory.
    No. You don't read. It was clear to everyone else.

  16. #16
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI.
    They've come a long way since I lived in the area (05 or so when my wife graduated). I used to work at Central Park Bikes in Okemos, FWIW. Used to live in the apartments on Okemos Rd just south of the river.

    Back when I lived there, bikes were INSTRUCTED to use the sidewalks instead of the roads.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Straz85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    It's exactly parallel to a motorist buzzing a cyclist on the road, because the motorist thinks they don't belong there.
    .
    Not really "exactly parallel". The difference is that when drivers think cyclists shouldn't be in the road, it's their opinion and the law isn't on their side. In this case, TenSpeed is correct in saying that pedestrians aren't allowed. Does it make it okay to purposely buzz by them? No. But your comparison certainly isn't accurate.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    No. You don't read. It was clear to everyone else.
    You're right, I re-read his post, he admitted again he intentionally buzzes people.

    So you're condoning his actions of intentionally riding at people?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Straz85 View Post
    Not really "exactly parallel". The difference is that when drivers think cyclists shouldn't be in the road, it's their opinion and the law isn't on their side. In this case, TenSpeed is correct in saying that pedestrians aren't allowed. Does it make it okay to purposely buzz by them? No. But your comparison certainly isn't accurate.
    I'd doubt there is a law banning peds from that bike lane: another problem with infrastructure in this country, no standards of implementation or rules of use.

    The comparison is a parallel, certainly: two modes of transport with disproportionate rates of travel and a mindset of 'I belong here and you don't,' i.e. entitled.

  20. #20
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    In areas where motor traffic is removed and bike/ped traffic is allowed, a totally different type of riding is required. Pedestrian traffic is the least predictable. It takes a different mindset. Instead of 'this space is mine' it needs to be 'this space is ours'; free of the dangers of fast moving vehicles. The problem is as much your mindset as that of pedestrians.

    Peds see that lane as a calm place to walk, free of the threat of motorized vehicles. You see it as your personal freeway through an area filled with unpredictable people. It's amazing how stress melts away when the notion of 'this is mine, that is yours' is replaced with 'this is ours, let's all get where we're going safely and enjoy the landscape and presence of human beings without the threat of motorized vehicles.'
    That space is MINE. It clearly says no pedestrians, and cycles only. If I am on my bike, that space is mine. It is a personal freeway, as it is for cycles only, not pedestrians. I am not sure that you can grasp the concept of the pictures that I posted here. There is a walking path for pedestrians, but it is NOT in the cycle only lane.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  21. #21
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    They've come a long way since I lived in the area (05 or so when my wife graduated). I used to work at Central Park Bikes in Okemos, FWIW. Used to live in the apartments on Okemos Rd just south of the river.

    Back when I lived there, bikes were INSTRUCTED to use the sidewalks instead of the roads.
    I am not too far from Denny's. I frequent that shop quite a bit. How long did you work there? And is Nate your real first name? I have a friend who worked there for several years who you may have worked with. And Tom and Al along with Don are still wrenching on bikes there.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    The point I made in the other thread: posting these pictures on this forum solves nothing. Taking photos and going to the authorities on campus (campus police, student govt., administration) is one solution. But trying to prove a point to individuals by buzzing them does nothing but reinforce a dangerous mentality and adds to frustrations felt by different modal groups. Not to mention the callousness of such an action.

    This is where I stand on this issue:

    The peds are wrong and TenSpeed is wrong, I'm wrong. Everyone is so caught up in pointing out who is more wrong that the problem remains unsolved. It's not just dumb peds and entitled cyclists, it's both. I've offered several solutions to TenSpeed. While they are not immediately satisfying as vigilante justice, given time things improve.

    This is a numbers issue. I'm willing to bet the cycle traffic is so light that most peds. just assume there is no issue with talking there. However, if there were, pick a number, a 1000+ bikes a day on that path, more peds would stick to the ped walkway. But you know, always assume anything anyone does that inconveniences you is a personal attack. They're doing it just to spite you.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    That space is MINE. It clearly says no pedestrians, and cycles only. If I am on my bike, that space is mine. It is a personal freeway, as it is for cycles only, not pedestrians. I am not sure that you can grasp the concept of the pictures that I posted here. There is a walking path for pedestrians, but it is NOT in the cycle only lane.
    Sure, it's yours, no one else can use it. With that mentality, the next time I'm walking down a sidewalk, I'll just shove out of the way anyone who is walking slower than me. Or, at least, give them a good shoulder check as I pass. Because that sidewalk was built for me and no one else.

    edit* I'm sorry, I mean, I'll knock down anyone riding their bike on the sidewalk, because they don't belong there and the law is one my side. --Just to keep with the theme.

  24. #24
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Frustration? Oh, you mean how cyclists are frustrated when pedestrians are walking on a cycling only path? You mean that kind of frustration? Where there is a pedestrian path not 10 feet to the left of the cycling path, yet the pedestrian clearly makes the choice to walk on the cycling path? I cannot cater to others stupidity. I shouldn't have to stop and gently remind the pedestrian that it is a cycling only path. The very visible signage does that for me. I refuse to baby and coddle people. You want to walk on the cycle path? You might get buzzed. Maybe next time you will think, hey, maybe I shouldn't be walking where I am not supposed to.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  25. #25
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Sure, it's yours, no one else can use it. With that mentality, the next time I'm walking down a sidewalk, I'll just shove out of the way anyone who is walking slower than me. Or, at least, give them a good shoulder check as I pass. Because that sidewalk was built for me and no one else.
    You clearly are showing that you have no understanding of this situation.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    No, I'd think: ****, next time a bike comes by and buzzes me, maybe I'll knock his ass down.

    Your actions are doing a lot to help bridge the gap between peds and cyclist. Something that needs accomplished so we can stop the monopoly on our public roads by motorized traffic.

    I don't baby and coddle anyone either, but I am sympathetic and don't think endangering others is a viable solution to anything other than more conflict.

  27. #27
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,996

    Re: Pedestrians vs bikes and a sense of self entitlement?

    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    I am not too far from Denny's. I frequent that shop quite a bit. How long did you work there? And is Nate your real first name? I have a friend who worked there for several years who you may have worked with. And Tom and Al along with Don are still wrenching on bikes there.
    I worked there for a bit less than a year before moving to Pittsburgh. I enjoyed working there. Good to hear the same wrenches are still there. And yes, Nate is my real name.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,741
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I'm sorry, I mean, I'll knock down anyone riding their bike on the sidewalk, because they don't belong there and the law is one my side. --Just to keep with the theme.
    That will not do, you need a weapon.

    Also, the law about no bikes on sidewalks doesn't actually have to exist, apparently.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  29. #29
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    I have to agree - bikes don't belong on the sidewalk. On the rare chance that I am caught in a situation where I am on a sidewalk, I will often dismount and walk my bike until I can get to a safe riding area. If for some reason I have to ride on the sidewalk, I am very slow and go around pedestrians. That is their area, not mine, and I am respectful to them.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,455
    Just get a super soaker and a loud horn. Easy.

  31. #31
    Wierdo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,020
    Yes the lane is reserved for bikes. But it does not matter because no matter what you do there will always be peds walking on the bike path - see there is no cure for the clueless. You can buzz them, call the cops, post pictures, rant on MTBR, talk to the university and nothing you do will make a bit of difference...there will still be peds walking there. You just need to come to terms with that.

    I would be careful with buzzing peds. Someone makes a turn at the wrong time and you could seriously hurt or kill. The fact that there is a no ped sign painted on the walkway is probably not going to help your defense very much.

  32. #32
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    No, I'd think: ****, next time a bike comes by and buzzes me, maybe I'll knock his ass down.

    Your actions are doing a lot to help bridge the gap between peds and cyclist. Something that needs accomplished so we can stop the monopoly on our public roads by motorized traffic.

    I don't baby and coddle anyone either, but I am sympathetic and don't think endangering others is a viable solution to anything other than more conflict.
    I think you should sympathetically walk along a train line and put your theories to the test! It is the pedestrians putting cyclists at risk in this situation and has nothing to do with warm hugs and welcoming attitudes. I wonder if your political correctness extends to patting me on the back when I pi$$ in the sink in your bathroom.

  33. #33
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,697
    I would still report it, because:
    a) they might actually do something about it - emphasize danger and liability and maybe see if others are also willing to complain
    b) if something does happen, and you or a ped gets hurt, you will be in a far better position if you have previously reported it as a safety concern - report it every time it happens if need be, copy and paste!

    I don't think playing the "entitlement" card is useful in any road/path user conversation; it implies you know someone's motivation, when you don't. Consider focusing on why it is a problem for other path users rather than why they are bad people.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    205
    Nobody here seems to have a problem with your main argument. Pedestrians are often the most unpredictable and the least concerned with the rules of all road/path users. I would venture that every single frequent bike commuter since the dawn of bike lanes has crossed paths with a unconscientious pedestrian that unnecessarily blocked their way in way that they found at least mildly aggravating. That it happens in sidewalk bike lanes is frustrating enough. That it happens in segregated bike only paths (particularly well paved ones that look so enticing - I'm jealous) a few feet from the sidewalk must be beyond infuriating. The pedestrians you point out are clearly in the wrong.

    However, as I stated previously, in my mind, from my personal ethical perspective, that still doesn't justify buzzing a pedestrian while on a bike. It seems I am not the only one. Furthermore I don't think, given your earlier answers to the previous thread, that even you are completely convinced that buzzing people is underlying justified (and that you do it very often). But I accept that morality is loaded and relative and the rest of us may never convince fully you of our point of view. And again, it seems you are more concerned with asserting your right to buzz people than soliciting encouragement for actually doing it with any frequency.

    But here's my question, without getting to the minutiae of legal tests and statutes and case law that I'm not either qualified to interpret or wont to delve into: if you ever do end up hurting someone you "semi-buzzed", would you actually be willing to cop to it and try to assert your right to buzz in a courtroom?

  35. #35
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,407
    That looks confusing for a pedestrian to figure out. The design is crap since pedestrians have to cross in the path of cyclists to reach a destination. Honestly it would be better w/o markings or some wayfinding signage describing the rules of the road.

    Heck here people just walk right in front of you mid block, against lights assuming youll 1. see um and 2. stop and let them cross so theyre kinda startled when you yell "hey" or "heads up" and dont look like your stopping anytime soon..

  36. #36
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Carton View Post
    But here's my question, without getting to the minutiae of legal tests and statutes and case law that I'm not either qualified to interpret or wont to delve into: if you ever do end up hurting someone you "semi-buzzed", would you actually be willing to cop to it and try to assert your right to buzz in a courtroom?
    Or the more likely scenario that you get taken to court accused of buzzing someone who unpredictably caused a crash you did nothing to deserve and could not avoid.

  37. #37
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by jrm View Post
    That looks confusing for a pedestrian to figure out. The design is crap since pedestrians have to cross in the path of cyclists to reach a destination. Honestly it would be better w/o markings or some wayfinding signage describing the rules of the road.

    Heck here people just walk right in front of you mid block, against lights assuming youll 1. see um and 2. stop and let them cross so theyre kinda startled when you yell "hey" or "heads up" and dont look like your stopping anytime soon..
    You cannot be serious that it looks confusing. I have to assume that you are joking here. What is confusing? At given points, yes, you would as a pedestrian have to cross the bike lane to get to the pedestrian lane. That is because it runs right through the middle of the campus and the sidewalks from both directions can dump you off on the paths. The pedestrian path was existing and the cycle path was added. At every junction, there is a warning sign that I posted making pedestrians aware that there is a bike lane there.

    As for the buzzing. I don't want people to think that I am prowling the bike lane and paths specifically looking for pedestrians to buzz because that is not the case at all. However, if I am riding on the bike specific path, and there are oncoming cyclists, and a pedestrian is in my lane, there is likely to be some buzzing because I will not stop for a pedestrian walking in the bike lane when the pedestrian path is right there. I will defend my actions and thoughts until the death. Some of you may not agree with me, and that is fine.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    439
    Those are some lovely paths, I am jealous.

    I have to agree with the folks who are against buzzing pedestrians, as pedestrians are unpredictable and often rendered deaf by ear buds and cell phone games. Mark Twain is credited with saying "Nothing in this world can be made fool- proof, because the fools are so damned ingenious." I think that applies here.

    On the other hand, these lanes are marked, signed, and designed for cyclists, not pedestrians. Tenspeed is right to feel entitled and annoyed. The planning commission entitled cyclists to use the paths unimpeded by pedestrians. Informing campus public safety that "students" are endangering themselves and others by walking in the bike paths may be unsatisfying, but it would be a step toward creating some awareness of the issue without requiring any ambulances.

    A more satisfying solution might be to get a canister air horn and slow down to a crawl before laying it on a safe distance behind the offending walker.

    More satisfying still would be to get campus police to ride with you for a few evenings and issue tickets. It is the responsibility of campus/ city public safety officers to protect both the right to a bike route and the safety of pedestrians. If they are not willing to do their job, a few letters to the editors of local newspapers might shame them into changing their ways.

  39. #39
    NDD
    NDD is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,446
    I second the airhorn idea. Yelling won't work, Because of headphones or lack of sh*ts to give or because people walk in huge groups. I generally hate riding by unannounced because I have scared some old folks to near death a couple times. Air horn is like ultimate announcement.

    I think it's best to take the less aggressive (physically aggressive that is) than to hurt someone. Believe me, I've done it a couple times to people I deemed as not fit to be walking on public grounds and ya know, nearly getting plowed doesn't change anyone's mind, especially when it's obviously done on purpose.

    That's my campus experience here. Whatever man, you do you.
    dang

  40. #40
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Seriously considering a Hornit. I think that might just do the job.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,741
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    I have to agree - bikes don't belong on the sidewalk. On the rare chance that I am caught in a situation where I am on a sidewalk, I will often dismount and walk my bike until I can get to a safe riding area.
    The problem locally is that the main "bike path" into and out of the city:

    1. Is often barely wider than a sidewalk.
    2. Has worse sightlines than most sidewalks.
    3. Has more pedestrians per km than most sidewalks.
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  42. #42
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,996
    all of these arguments hinge on the assumption that pedestrians will THINK about where they walk and CARE if they are walking against signs.

    Which they won't. Which is why the ninja salmon bike rider is so common. Police don't care about managing this kind of traffic. Not in the slightest. I see people blatantly breaking all sorts of these minor traffic control laws in front of police officers all the time and the officers don't even stop to educate people, let along write a ticket.

    Locally, bike lanes exist in a lot of places where sidewalks don't exist. They actually do get plowed (eventually), and they're not muddy (as is often the case in the grass just off the side of the road). Therefore, pedestrians walk in the bike lanes. Mopeds use the bike lanes. People salmon ride in the bike lanes.

    You can have all of the signage and laws on the books in the world, but people are going to do what they feel like whenever they feel like it unless someone holds them accountable for it. If/when bike traffic gets to be heavy enough in bike lanes and paths to encourage pedestrians to use designated pedestrian space, then they will do so.

    This is right outside my office at one of my three jobs (one day per week, but I work from home most of the time).



    Clearly marked. See the pedestrian in the bike lane down the block? Nobody REALLY follows the signage 100%. Bikes on the pedestrian side. Peds on the bike side. It is what it is. In places where space is tight, there is no separation. Bikes and peds share space. So people just don't think about it elsewhere.

    My opinion, follow the signs and ride in your designated space. Put a horn on the bike. If the pedestrian is being predictable, pass them with space and go on with your day. If they're being unpredictable or they have a dog with a flexi leash or one of the other multitude of things peds do that endanger bikes, blast the horn and tell them that they are in a bike-only path. Then go on with your day.

  43. #43
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,407
    Serious as a heart attack. Theres no ped limit lines/crosswalks, no physical separation or controlling devices such as warning lights, beacons or sounds at the points where the mainline path crosses or joins other paths. So peds have no safe haven since there always exposed to the progress of cyclists from the rear, sides and head on. That thing was never intended to be a MUT.

  44. #44
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Nate - that path....I would love to ride that. How far does it go, and what type of infrastructure is there where you live/work?
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  45. #45
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    Nate - that path....I would love to ride that. How far does it go, and what type of infrastructure is there where you live/work?
    It's roughly 7mi or so. Lit at night. Plowed in winter. Circles the downtown area, and with a couple spurs heading out through a couple popular neighborhoods for local businesses (and it's also spurring a lot of redevelopment in neighborhoods near the trail, but that had been going downhill before). That one runs for at least 16mi into the next county, which partly owes to its popularity.

    The spurs connect to other greenway trails that head out of town. One is an old railroad bed that goes north and connects some trendy neighborhoods to the downtown area. The other goes roughly east and follows a creek that has a lot of city park along the stretch. It is not as popular because there are parts where it dumps onto regular sidewalks for awhile in some poorer neighborhoods, but it ends in a nice, historic neighborhood in a nice park. I think next year that one will connect at the eastern terminus to an old railroad bed path that will eventually extend to Ohio. And the other end at some point will extend to Illinois. The nearest point I can access this one is about half a mile from my house, but it is currently a short, unconnected segment that's maybe 3mi long.

    This is how all of those things fit into the city's greenway master plan.

    https://indygreenwaysmasterplan.file...masterplan.pdf

    When it's done, I will be able to ride my bike TO any of the mtb trails in town entirely on cycling infrastructure, especially once the separate bike lane plan is complete. Over 200 miles of greenways, IIRC, combined with over 200 miles of bike lanes.

Similar Threads

  1. Lost Pedestrians!
    By Grimgrin in forum Riding Passion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-09-2014, 05:57 PM
  2. does this make sense?
    By tomekkplk in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-27-2014, 07:09 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-09-2014, 01:59 PM
  4. Probably more money than sense, two bikes in two months.
    By GregTR in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-02-2013, 06:33 PM
  5. Pedestrians rights to use interstates and public roads through state parks.
    By zerodish in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 05:32 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.