Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.outsideonline.com/...311/politics-passing

Another take on the shared-use trail-thing.

When riding on a trail, it’s virtually impossible to pass a walker, runner, or hiker from behind without scaring the living shit out of them.

I think the above quote from winky's link sums it up nicely.............

Absolutely. So get the bikes off the shared use paths, please. Make them one thing or another. I can't stand sharing those paths whether I am a walker or a cyclist at the time. They are absolutely terrifying to walk on and slow and frustrating to cycle on. Shared use paths can only work when trails are very lightly used. They have no place in the urban environment, nor in other busy walking and cycling areas.

Quick "war story". To avoid an 800m length of shared use path I ride on the very quiet dead-end road that runs parallel to, and directly beside the path. One morning I was chastised by two ladies walking their dogs on the same road. "Get on the bike path!" they exclaimed. I turned around and politely explained that I chose the road so as to not scare nor otherwise interfere with the pedestrians' experience on the path. It also allowed me to cycle faster than I could do safely on the shared-use path. They explained that they chose to walk on the road to avoid the cyclists. We laughed at the irony and continued on our way.

Hi winky,

You will find (if you trawl through my posts in this thread - but don't, I will tell you anyway since we seem to be in agreement for once !!) that I advocated single-use cycle-paths some pages back. Paid for from public funds, just like roads. I am not sure whether Central Gov (or probably Provincial Gov in Canada - see my joke about Elephants) could be persuaded by the Electorate to invest in such infrastructure, but that's a separate issue.

Drewy posted:

Don Atkinson posted

When riding on a trail, it’s virtually impossible to pass a walker, runner, or hiker from behind without scaring the living shit out of them.

 

How about using the bell or your voice (politely)? 

A quick read of winky's link will enlighten all who read it as to the problems this part of the enlightened cycling fraternity perceive........it's a fairly short article.

Worth a read. Although to be fair, it probably relates to Canadian off-road Trails, which used to be the preserve of the Back-packing hiker (like me and Mrs D) but are now being shared by mountain-bikers. Also the down-hill biking routes that exist on the ski-slopes during the summer months.

Innocent Bystander posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Drewy posted:

Don Atkinson posted

When riding on a trail, it’s virtually impossible to pass a walker, runner, or hiker from behind without scaring the living shit out of them.

 

How about using the bell or your voice (politely)? 

When I'm walking, that doesn't alleviate my fear of being struck by a cyclist. If the cyclist alerts me from far enough away, I'm not sure if it is for me or for another walker behind me, and I am still uncertain whether they have seen me or not. I'm now bracing for impact. If they leave it to the last minute, I'm certain it is for me, but it scares the crap out of me. I also find it rude. It is saying "Coming through, outta my way!" whereas, there should be no need. The overtaking vehicle must give way so should just wait until it is safe to pass.

 

Erm, you could look over your shoulder when you hear the bell, rather than bracing yourself for impact...

Well, yes, but it quickly becomes tiresome. And there's nothing guarantee that I won't turn around just to see the impending collision. The cyclist has 100% responsibility to not hit me. I just don't trust them to do it. It is just unpleasant and scary to be continually overtaken by cyclists on these shared-use facilities. Not that different to riding on the road.

Don Atkinson posted:

Drewy posted:

Don Atkinson posted

When riding on a trail, it’s virtually impossible to pass a walker, runner, or hiker from behind without scaring the living shit out of them.

 

How about using the bell or your voice (politely)? 

A quick read of winky's link will enlighten all who read it as to the problems this part of the enlightened cycling fraternity perceive........it's a fairly short article.

Worth a read. Although to be fair, it probably relates to Canadian off-road Trails, which used to be the preserve of the Back-packing hiker (like me and Mrs D) but are now being shared by mountain-bikers. Also the down-hill biking routes that exist on the ski-slopes during the summer months.

Mountain bikes on forest walking trails are a scourge. Scary. It is managed on the Northshore here by a wide variety of available trails and pretty good segregation. Very few shared-use trails in most areas. Doesn't stop the occasional booby trap being set by disgruntled walkers, though.

None of the 3 ski areas on the Northshore offer lift-assisted biking. Whistler does, but hikers venturing into the ski-hill know what to expect, and the bike trails are well-marked.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.outsideonline.com/...311/politics-passing

Another take on the shared-use trail-thing.

When riding on a trail, it’s virtually impossible to pass a walker, runner, or hiker from behind without scaring the living shit out of them.

I think the above quote from winky's link sums it up nicely.............

Absolutely. So get the bikes off the shared use paths, please. Make them one thing or another. I can't stand sharing those paths whether I am a walker or a cyclist at the time. They are absolutely terrifying to walk on and slow and frustrating to cycle on. Shared use paths can only work when trails are very lightly used. They have no place in the urban environment, nor in other busy walking and cycling areas.

Quick "war story". To avoid an 800m length of shared use path I ride on the very quiet dead-end road that runs parallel to, and directly beside the path. One morning I was chastised by two ladies walking their dogs on the same road. "Get on the bike path!" they exclaimed. I turned around and politely explained that I chose the road so as to not scare nor otherwise interfere with the pedestrians' experience on the path. It also allowed me to cycle faster than I could do safely on the shared-use path. They explained that they chose to walk on the road to avoid the cyclists. We laughed at the irony and continued on our way.

Hi winky,

You will find (if you trawl through my posts in this thread - but don't, I will tell you anyway since we seem to be in agreement for once !!) that I advocated single-use cycle-paths some pages back. Paid for from public funds, just like roads. I am not sure whether Central Gov (or probably Provincial Gov in Canada - see my joke about Elephants) could be persuaded by the Electorate to invest in such infrastructure, but that's a separate issue.

My issue with your issue is that you characterised the problems as being cyclists' behaviours, whereas I'd contend that the real issue is the circumstances that place cyclists and walkers on the same trail/path. Anything other than exemplary behaviour by either type of user is perceived as reckless anarchy.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.outsideonline.com/...311/politics-passing

Another take on the shared-use trail-thing.

When riding on a trail, it’s virtually impossible to pass a walker, runner, or hiker from behind without scaring the living shit out of them.

I think the above quote from winky's link sums it up nicely.............

Absolutely. So get the bikes off the shared use paths, please. Make them one thing or another. I can't stand sharing those paths whether I am a walker or a cyclist at the time. They are absolutely terrifying to walk on and slow and frustrating to cycle on. Shared use paths can only work when trails are very lightly used. They have no place in the urban environment, nor in other busy walking and cycling areas.

Quick "war story". To avoid an 800m length of shared use path I ride on the very quiet dead-end road that runs parallel to, and directly beside the path. One morning I was chastised by two ladies walking their dogs on the same road. "Get on the bike path!" they exclaimed. I turned around and politely explained that I chose the road so as to not scare nor otherwise interfere with the pedestrians' experience on the path. It also allowed me to cycle faster than I could do safely on the shared-use path. They explained that they chose to walk on the road to avoid the cyclists. We laughed at the irony and continued on our way.

Hi winky,

You will find (if you trawl through my posts in this thread - but don't, I will tell you anyway since we seem to be in agreement for once !!) that I advocated single-use cycle-paths some pages back. Paid for from public funds, just like roads. I am not sure whether Central Gov (or probably Provincial Gov in Canada - see my joke about Elephants) could be persuaded by the Electorate to invest in such infrastructure, but that's a separate issue.

My issue with your issue is that you characterised the problems as being cyclists' behaviours, whereas I'd contend that the real issue is the circumstances that place cyclists and walkers on the same trail/path. Anything other than exemplary behaviour by either type of user is perceived as reckless anarchy.

Yep, we are discussing both the circumstances that place cyclists and walkers in the same place. And also their behaviours.

Solution 1. Exemplary behaviour. I didn't see this from cyclists at CenterParcs and I don't see this on the K&A towpaths (or Richmond riverside) which is what prompted the thread. Subsequently others, including yourself plus myself, inform us that poor behaviour by cyclists exists in our towns and cities.

Solution 2. Provide separate places for cyclists and pedestrians. Not really practical in the countryside, but could be implemented in towns and cities if the Electorate (majority) persuaded the Gov to provide the funding.

Some of us on this forum, claim to exhibit exemplary behaviour as cyclists. What a pity so many in our societies don't behave properly.

As a follow-up.....

I am aware that public funding covered the cost of a dedicated cyclepath between Canmore and Banff a few years back. We=ve used it !

And the old railway line between Vernon and Kelowna is being converted to a cycle path with local funding. Hopefully we can use it next week !

So it seems that the Electorate CAN be effective (sometimes !)

On my commute in this morning, I saw that someone had crudely painted instructions to cyclists on the Lionsgate Bridge shared-use path.

"Cyclists Single File"

"Cyclists Yield to Walkers"

"Slow"

I've ridden this bridge over 3000 times in the past 8 years. I've never seen an issue arise from cyclists not riding single file. Overtaking is safe on the slower uphill section, but best avoided on the downhills. With respect to pedestrians, it's usually not clear who actually yields to who. There are designated lanes for bikes and walkers, but the unwritten rule is that slower traffic keeps to the right. Pedestrians certainly move aside if they are walking in the centre, but then so do cyclists. For the most part it seems to work. Neither party wants a collision. I have see groups of pedestrians completely blocking the lane on many occasions, though. They will usually single-file once they realise that a cyclist wishes to come past, though. Not so the girl with earphones jogging right in the centre a couple of weeks ago - she didn't know I was there until I was past.

"Slow" is good advice, but it was written on a 5% uphill grade that has cyclists moving relatively slowly anyway (e-bikes notwithstanding - those things can book!). Slowing on the downhill is definitely a good idea, particulalry when encountering pedestrians.

Cyclists are properly restricted to one-way on each side, while the pedestrians are two ways on both sides. My preference as a pedestrian would be always to walk facing the oncoming cyclists. Many don't bother, though and walk with their back to the cyclists. At peak hour, with a constant stream of commuter cyclists coming past (ringing their bloody bells or not) it must be a singularly unpleasant and terrifying experience. I've seen two accidents in the 8 years, both on the downhill stretch heading North. In each case the cyclist came off MUCH worse, requiring ambulance treatment.

I just wonder if the person who painted the signs got back in their car and then cursed cyclists for not riding in the gutter and letting them through.

winkyincanada posted:

On my commute in this morning, I saw that someone had crudely painted instructions to cyclists on the Lionsgate Bridge shared-use path.

"Cyclists Single File"

"Cyclists Yield to Walkers"

"Slow"

I've ridden this bridge over 3000 times in the past 8 years. I've never seen an issue arise from cyclists not riding single file. Overtaking is safe on the slower uphill section, but best avoided on the downhills. With respect to pedestrians, it's usually not clear who actually yields to who. There are designated lanes for bikes and walkers, but the unwritten rule is that slower traffic keeps to the right. Pedestrians certainly move aside if they are walking in the centre, but then so do cyclists. For the most part it seems to work. Neither party wants a collision. I have see groups of pedestrians completely blocking the lane on many occasions, though. They will usually single-file once they realise that a cyclist wishes to come past, though. Not so the girl with earphones jogging right in the centre a couple of weeks ago - she didn't know I was there until I was past.

"Slow" is good advice, but it was written on a 5% uphill grade that has cyclists moving relatively slowly anyway (e-bikes notwithstanding - those things can book!). Slowing on the downhill is definitely a good idea, particulalry when encountering pedestrians.

Cyclists are properly restricted to one-way on each side, while the pedestrians are two ways on both sides. My preference as a pedestrian would be always to walk facing the oncoming cyclists. Many don't bother, though and walk with their back to the cyclists. At peak hour, with a constant stream of commuter cyclists coming past (ringing their bloody bells or not) it must be a singularly unpleasant and terrifying experience. I've seen two accidents in the 8 years, both on the downhill stretch heading North. In each case the cyclist came off MUCH worse, requiring ambulance treatment.

I just wonder if the person who painted the signs got back in their car and then cursed cyclists for not riding in the gutter and letting them through.

Was he actually muttering as he got back in his car, or was it a woman driver who painted the signs ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Was he actually muttering as he got back in his car, or was it a woman driver who painted the signs ?

I don't get it.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Was he actually muttering as he got back in his car, or was it a woman driver who painted the signs ?

I don't get it.

Ah !

Your final paragraph implied that you knew it was a motorist who painted the signs. I just presumed you had seen this person, otherwise how could you be so sure ? Hence I assumed you could also tell if it was a man or a woman and  see them "mouthing" appropriate curses.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Was he actually muttering as he got back in his car, or was it a woman driver who painted the signs ?

I don't get it.

Ah !

Your final paragraph implied that you knew it was a motorist who painted the signs. I just presumed you had seen this person, otherwise how could you be so sure ? Hence I assumed you could also tell if it was a man or a woman and  see them "mouthing" appropriate curses.

It implied nothing of the sort. I was just wondering. Read it again. It is probably reasonable to assume it was someone who has cycled or walked over the bridge recently. I can't imagine that someone who only drives across the bridge gives $h!+ about what cyclists or pedestrians do on the shared-use paths. Other than perhaps feel a little jealous/foolish as the see their caged and grid-locked @$$ be overtaken by people moving under their own power.

Ah! So it probably wasn't somebody who drove onto the bridge to paint these signs. Just a pedestrian or cyclist.

Don Atkinson posted:

Ah! So it probably wasn't somebody who drove onto the bridge to paint these signs. Just a pedestrian or cyclist.

Well you can't park on the bridge, so the person who painted them was walking or cycling along the shared-use path. I'm not sure what your point is. Did the person drive, park and then walk? Did they take the bus? Did they get a cab. Did they cycle to the spot and lean their bike against rail? Did they walk from home? Who knows? Who cares?

What they DID do was to deface public infrastructure. That much is certain.

I just said that I wondered whether they had a general issue with cyclists' behaviour and expect cyclists to always give way to them , whether they driving or walking. I also wonder if they went to the spot nearby where a cyclist was killed by a  car and wrote on the road "Drivers! Don't kill cyclists!" This would make as much sense as what they wrote on the bridge.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41028321

With 4 or 5 people being killed by motorists every single day on UK's roads, one wonders why this particular one is news.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question. The headline is everything. The issue I have with it is that it simply fuels the white-hot hatred and aggression towards cyclists. And yes, the guy is a tosser and deserves what's coming.

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question. The headline is everything. The issue I have with it is that it simply fuels the white-hot hatred and aggression towards cyclists. And yes, the guy is a tosser and deserves what's coming.

I really don't know what part of the world you live in but in North London, where I live, we don"t seem to have a lot of those "white-hot haters" you're on about. Just bad cyclists and drivers. I'll be on the look out though from now on.

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question. The headline is everything. The issue I have with it is that it simply fuels the white-hot hatred and aggression towards cyclists. And yes, the guy is a tosser and deserves what's coming.

Bit over the top winky with that "white hot hatred" statement. IMHO.

I don't personally know any motorist with that frame of mind. No doubt there are a few and there are probably a few reciprocating cyclists.

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question. The headline is everything. The issue I have with it is that it simply fuels the white-hot hatred and aggression towards cyclists. And yes, the guy is a tosser and deserves what's coming.

I really don't know what part of the world you live in but in North London, where I live, we don"t seem to have a lot of those "white-hot haters" you're on about. Just bad cyclists and drivers. I'll be on the look out though from now on.

Tony, he lives in Canada, Vancouver more specifically.

I'm on my way there now, to a town called Vernon, also in BC.

Perhaps it's about time winky moved. I haven't seen that type of motorist in Vernon or nearby Kelowna. Perhaps I just drive around with my eyes closed 

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question. The headline is everything. The issue I have with it is that it simply fuels the white-hot hatred and aggression towards cyclists. And yes, the guy is a tosser and deserves what's coming.

Bit over the top winky with that "white hot hatred" statement. IMHO.

I don't personally know any motorist with that frame of mind. No doubt there are a few and there are probably a few reciprocating cyclists.

Ever read the comments section on a cycling story in the press? We're despised, alright.

Don Atkinson posted:

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

See my post. There are 4 or 5 people killed by drivers every single day. Why is this one news?

The headline makes all the difference, winky. I'm an occasional cyclist and a driver. The guy is an arrogant tosser giving good cyclists a bad name! 

Yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question. The headline is everything. The issue I have with it is that it simply fuels the white-hot hatred and aggression towards cyclists. And yes, the guy is a tosser and deserves what's coming.

I really don't know what part of the world you live in but in North London, where I live, we don"t seem to have a lot of those "white-hot haters" you're on about. Just bad cyclists and drivers. I'll be on the look out though from now on.

Tony, he lives in Canada, Vancouver more specifically.

I'm on my way there now, to a town called Vernon, also in BC.

Perhaps it's about time winky moved. I haven't seen that type of motorist in Vernon or nearby Kelowna. Perhaps I just drive around with my eyes closed 

I've ridden quite a bit in Penticton (which is near Kelowna) and suffered a fair bit of verbal abuse and "punishment passes" from motorists (usually in giant pick-ups) there. Outside of Pemberton I was targeted (but missed) by a thrown 1/2-full beer can. I suggested the other day to a young lady that she shouldn't be reading texts while driving in traffic the other day. I received abuse from the occupants of the following car who asserted that as I was not driving, I "had no rights". Suggestions to those who walk their dogs off-leash on shared-use paths that it might not be safe for either the dog or for passing cyclists are typically met with forcible suggestions to do somewhat crude and anatomically difficult things to myself.

Does it need to be the majority of motorists who abuse and endanger cyclists for it to be considered a problem? While ever it is just a few, it's OK, right?

But admittedly Canada is paradise compared to Australia where the seething hatred is explicitly supported by government policy.

winkyincanada posted:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41028321

With 4 or 5 people being killed by motorists every single day on UK's roads, one wonders why this particular one is news.

Interesting perspective presented... https://www.theguardian.com/en...rious-driving-charge