Cyclists, paths and warning bells

Antagonist said :

Back to the discussion, I prefer to walk on the right-hand side of a (shared) bike path. When a cyclist is coming I move off the path to the RIGHT (yep – on the grass) for the few brief seconds it takes for the cyclist to pass. And I tend to give cyclists the right of way on footpaths too, simply out of courtesy. Something long dead on the roads and paths of Canberra.

While I appreciate you like to give us way I would appreciate it more if you stayed left. I have had more incidents with people using this method then just staying left. Even if a rider may startle you as they pass, they are expecting you to stay left and being able to pass you on the right with a minimum of fuss works the best.

Doing the opposite just makes it hard to judge, while you might move off the path, pretty well everybody else doesnt & I have had to take evasive action on many occaisions.

Grail said :

kakosi said :

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

The rules also say this “Dismount and walk across pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights, unless there are bicycle-crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.”

What is the difference between a crossing with the green bicycle light and those without? Nothing except the little green light and some words on paper. Sensible & considerate people can cross safely without dismounting. In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.

Foolish people will not cross safely, even if they dismount. Forcing law abiding sensible citizens to dismount will not stop idiots running out in front of cars. You cannot legislate stupid people away.

What safety advantage is there to dismounting that simply slowing to “walking pace” won’t also provide? How many cyclists have been run over at pedestrian crossings who would have avoided being run over if they had simply looked for cars before crossing the road?

On the other hand, keeping left and keeping animals under control means that you are better able to share the path. When a cyclist is approaching, they ring their bell to warn you to their presence, and the pedestrians will (being polite citizens sharing the shared path) keep to the left to allow the cyclist to pass safely.

When a cyclist wishes to overtake pedestrians but there is traffic coming the other way, the sensible and polite cyclist will wait on the left behind the slower traffic while the oncoming traffic goes by.

Sharing the path makes sense: it means we can safely have cyclists and pedestrians sharing shared paths.

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

You can’t legislate intelligence or civility. You can, on the other hand, codify common sense so that everyone follows the same common sense rules: keeping to one side of the track makes it easier to share, so we pick a side and codify that the side we keep to is the left. Slowing down at road crossings and looking for cars is common sense: codifying “slow down” in terms of “dismount before crossing” makes as much sense as legislating for pedestrians to walk backwards so they can always be aware of approaching cyclists.

That is to say: the rule makes no sense. It shouldn’t have been introduced, it is not being followed by people who are still riding safely, it is ignored by drivers who stop for all pedestrian traffic that they are aware of, and it is not enforced by police except in the most egregious circumstances (in which case it is simply added on to reckless/negligent behaviour which already covers the offense being committed).

You should question laws which make no sense.

Questioning a law is one thing, deliberately breaking the law is another.

Antagonist said :

So I say again, if they cause your bike to become unwieldy and poorly balanced to the point that it makes crossing the road so difficult and dangerous, then they need to be repacked or removed. Common sense, no?

or ride across slowly so its safe for everyone.

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

The panniers are a variable the cyclist can control or influence. The number of limbs an amputee has is beyond the control of a cyclist . The simple application of common sense would lead any normal person to the same conclusion. What is the weather like on your planet?

Have you ever used panniers? One pannier is much easier to manage when off the bike and a non-issue when riding. Splitting the load across two panniers can give you floppy panniers which ARE a safety issue when riding. Setting my bikes up for riding makes sense to me.

Perhaps you could give some pointers to Grail before he takes someones eye out with them:

“In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.”

So I say again, if they cause your bike to become unwieldy and poorly balanced to the point that it makes crossing the road so difficult and dangerous, then they need to be repacked or removed. Common sense, no?

Brandi said :

Agreed, and nicely put. As a cyclist, with the heart rate up and the adrenaline pumping, it’s hard to have the discipline to slow or stop. But you’ve got the correct procedure right there, and that’s the rules.

Bike/shared paths are for low speed commuter and recreational cyclists who want to potter to work/school/shops/just go for general ride for fun and fitness, not for racers who are trying to get Strava segment KOMs or PRs. Racer types can join one of the local cycling clubs and participate in organised races that are held every week (usually on roads, so annoying all the motorists…).

Antagonist said :

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

The panniers are a variable the cyclist can control or influence. The number of limbs an amputee has is beyond the control of a cyclist . The simple application of common sense would lead any normal person to the same conclusion. What is the weather like on your planet?

Have you ever used panniers? One pannier is much easier to manage when off the bike and a non-issue when riding. Splitting the load across two panniers can give you floppy panniers which ARE a safety issue when riding. Setting my bikes up for riding makes sense to me.

Grail said :

kakosi said :

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

The rules also say this “Dismount and walk across pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights, unless there are bicycle-crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.”

What is the difference between a crossing with the green bicycle light and those without? Nothing except the little green light and some words on paper. Sensible & considerate people can cross safely without dismounting. In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.

Foolish people will not cross safely, even if they dismount. Forcing law abiding sensible citizens to dismount will not stop idiots running out in front of cars. You cannot legislate stupid people away.

What safety advantage is there to dismounting that simply slowing to “walking pace” won’t also provide? How many cyclists have been run over at pedestrian crossings who would have avoided being run over if they had simply looked for cars before crossing the road?

On the other hand, keeping left and keeping animals under control means that you are better able to share the path. When a cyclist is approaching, they ring their bell to warn you to their presence, and the pedestrians will (being polite citizens sharing the shared path) keep to the left to allow the cyclist to pass safely.

When a cyclist wishes to overtake pedestrians but there is traffic coming the other way, the sensible and polite cyclist will wait on the left behind the slower traffic while the oncoming traffic goes by.

Sharing the path makes sense: it means we can safely have cyclists and pedestrians sharing shared paths.

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

You can’t legislate intelligence or civility. You can, on the other hand, codify common sense so that everyone follows the same common sense rules: keeping to one side of the track makes it easier to share, so we pick a side and codify that the side we keep to is the left. Slowing down at road crossings and looking for cars is common sense: codifying “slow down” in terms of “dismount before crossing” makes as much sense as legislating for pedestrians to walk backwards so they can always be aware of approaching cyclists.

That is to say: the rule makes no sense. It shouldn’t have been introduced, it is not being followed by people who are still riding safely, it is ignored by drivers who stop for all pedestrian traffic that they are aware of, and it is not enforced by police except in the most egregious circumstances (in which case it is simply added on to reckless/negligent behaviour which already covers the offense being committed).

You should question laws which make no sense.

I agee in principle with most of what you say the law is the law and just because we might not agree with it doesn’t mean we should ignore it. Laws are made for the lowest (dumbest?) common demoninator of person. Not everyone has the right judgement to decide if a sitution is safe therefore authorities need to make decisions like these for us. If you want a law changed or amended then the best way is to lobby politicians for it stating your case as to what and why you think should be done.

Another example would be speed limit laws. Many of the roads have what seem to be very slow speed limits and could be driven safely at 10km/h or more above the posted limit (or a lot more if you were say Mark Webber or Craig Lowndes) but authorities realise that most of the general public don’t have the driving skills of MW and CL (or a F1/V8 supercar) and have to allow for all conditions (pouring rain at midnight) as well.

Also, “common sense” as you refer to it, is not that common these days. Some people these days don’t like taking responsibility for their own actions and when things turn pear-shaped they look around for somebody else to blame and could target the govt because there wasn’t a law/regulation in place to say they could or couldn’t do something.

rhavinmad said :

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense.

rhavinmad said :

I firmly believe that cyclists MUST dismount before using a pedestrian crossing

Ok, I’m confused.

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

I firmly believe that cyclists MUST dismount before using a pedestrian crossing and that there are many areas where barriers should be place to force cyclists off their bikes, for their own (arrogant and selfrightous) safety as well as the safety of the car (Most probably a 4×4 soccer mum talking on her phone) behind me.

Aeek said :

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

The panniers are a variable the cyclist can control or influence. The number of limbs an amputee has is beyond the control of a cyclist . The simple application of common sense would lead any normal person to the same conclusion. What is the weather like on your planet?

Antagonist said :

Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

What about people who can happily ride a bike but struggle to walk due to only having one leg?
Your common sense solution would be another amputation?
Sometimes the disability isn’t that obvious, they have two legs, but one isn’t reliable.

Grrrr said :

gizmo1 said :

Pedestrians have right of way. Get of the frigging path.
Simple.

I like how you completely ignored the road rules http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/cycling/cycling_and_walking_map/road_rules – as already posted. Also, your inability to spell “off.” Ah, but I probably shouldn’t make fun of someone who’s a bit Simple.

I like the bit in your link that says “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”.

steele_blade said :

as a walker, a big thank you to the cyclists who do ring their bell. In all seriousness, much appreciated.

You’re welcome. 🙂

Grail said :

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

*snip*

You should question laws which make no sense.

I am pretty this law was introduced because children were just riding their bikes out onto crossings and ended up under cars. Our learned legislators thought a good solution was to have children stop and dismount before crossing. It was simply easier to legislate for everyone to dismount, rather than just children. So the law does, in fact, have a basis in common sense. Speaking of common sense, if your panniers cause your bike to become unweildy and poorly balanced, then repack or remove them.

Back to the discussion, I prefer to walk on the right-hand side of a (shared) bike path. When a cyclist is coming I move off the path to the RIGHT (yep – on the grass) for the few brief seconds it takes for the cyclist to pass. And I tend to give cyclists the right of way on footpaths too, simply out of courtesy. Something long dead on the roads and paths of Canberra.

Weaselburger said :

… be aware that someone walking with their back turned to you listening to an Ipod and sending an SMS is pretty oblivious of bikes coming up behind them so please just learn to be patient….

It is not my responsibility to pick up your slack. If you go out in public wearing closed headphones or with your music turned up loud to drown out the rest of the world, you are causing a hazard for yourself and everyone around you. Walking along while listening to that music on so you can’t her, and focussed on the phone so you can’t see either? You are creating a death trap.

Please just learn to be sensible. If you want to listen to your music up loud and close your eyes, do that at home on the banana chair, in safety. If you are out in public, either step off the path and stand still when texting, or don’t wear headphones.

Safety is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone includes you, too!

Weaselburger said :

No don’t stay on the roads…. I’m sick of cyclists thinking they can cut lanes without giving way. Bike paths are for bikes … but I share your anguish ppt1ne they need to learn to share and be aware that someone walking with their back turned to you listening to an Ipod and sending an SMS is pretty oblivious of bikes coming up behind them so please just learn to be patient….

So what you are saying is one section of siciety should alter a percieved bad behavoir for another part of society that actually does create a hazard to pretty well all other parts of society by doing the things you mention above?

How is that the cyclists fault that the pedestrian disconnects themselves from the rest of the world while walking on a shared path when they really should be more aware?

gizmo1 said :

Pedestrians have right of way. Get of the frigging path.
Simple.

I like how you completely ignored the road rules http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/cycling/cycling_and_walking_map/road_rules – as already posted. Also, your inability to spell “off.” Ah, but I probably shouldn’t make fun of someone who’s a bit Simple.

Weaselburger said :

No don’t stay on the roads…. I’m sick of cyclists thinking they can cut lanes without giving way. Bike paths are for bikes … but I share your anguish ppt1ne they need to learn to share and be aware that someone walking with their back turned to you listening to an Ipod and sending an SMS is pretty oblivious of bikes coming up behind them so please just learn to be patient….

No don’t stay on the roads…. I’m sick of cyclists thinking they can cut lanes without giving way. Bike paths are for bikes … but I share your anguish ppt1ne they need to learn to share and be aware that someone walking with their back turned to you listening to an Ipod and sending an SMS is pretty oblivious of bikes coming up behind them so please just learn to be patient….

Pedestrians have right of way. Get of the frigging path.
Simple.

Well said, Grail @#51!

kakosi said :

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

The rules also say this “Dismount and walk across pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights, unless there are bicycle-crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.”

What is the difference between a crossing with the green bicycle light and those without? Nothing except the little green light and some words on paper. Sensible & considerate people can cross safely without dismounting. In many cases dismounting to cross makes the crossing more hazardous and consumes far more time: when I stop and dismount, I end up kicking someone in the crowd, I take more time to cross and the cars go through the crossing in frustration, or I have trouble keeping my bike upright due to oddly balanced panniers.

Foolish people will not cross safely, even if they dismount. Forcing law abiding sensible citizens to dismount will not stop idiots running out in front of cars. You cannot legislate stupid people away.

What safety advantage is there to dismounting that simply slowing to “walking pace” won’t also provide? How many cyclists have been run over at pedestrian crossings who would have avoided being run over if they had simply looked for cars before crossing the road?

On the other hand, keeping left and keeping animals under control means that you are better able to share the path. When a cyclist is approaching, they ring their bell to warn you to their presence, and the pedestrians will (being polite citizens sharing the shared path) keep to the left to allow the cyclist to pass safely.

When a cyclist wishes to overtake pedestrians but there is traffic coming the other way, the sensible and polite cyclist will wait on the left behind the slower traffic while the oncoming traffic goes by.

Sharing the path makes sense: it means we can safely have cyclists and pedestrians sharing shared paths.

Requiring cyclists to dismount before crossing roads has no basis in common sense. The cyclists who ride under cars aren’t being sensible in the first place, they are going to ride out under a truck regardless of laws about dismounting, having lights on at night, not riding under the influence of alcohol, or even basic advice about looking both ways before crossing the road.

You can’t legislate intelligence or civility. You can, on the other hand, codify common sense so that everyone follows the same common sense rules: keeping to one side of the track makes it easier to share, so we pick a side and codify that the side we keep to is the left. Slowing down at road crossings and looking for cars is common sense: codifying “slow down” in terms of “dismount before crossing” makes as much sense as legislating for pedestrians to walk backwards so they can always be aware of approaching cyclists.

That is to say: the rule makes no sense. It shouldn’t have been introduced, it is not being followed by people who are still riding safely, it is ignored by drivers who stop for all pedestrian traffic that they are aware of, and it is not enforced by police except in the most egregious circumstances (in which case it is simply added on to reckless/negligent behaviour which already covers the offense being committed).

You should question laws which make no sense.

ppt1ne said :

Again thank you to the (small minority of) people who participated in the discussion respectfully.

I have no anger towards anyone, … I would like to point out however, that my question did not imply that (a) pedestrians should be allowed to take up the whole path, or that (b) cyclists should leave the path.

Your original question was expressed in very angry tones and you specifically stated that, “your bell means nothing anymore … stay on the road or share.”

ppt1ne said :

My point, however, seems to have been given strength through this discourse – there are cyclists out there who do not see the similarities between cars on roads and bikes on charged paths. IMO, a cyclist, when faced with a slow pedestrian RIGHTFULLY occupying the entire left hand lane, for whatever reason (pram, dog, lardo, etc), and with the right hand lane occupied by traffic moving in the opposite direction, should do what a car does when a slow cyclist is doing the same on the road – slow down, be patient, and wait for a safe time to overtake.

See, now that you are not posting while angry, you are using more words and avoiding over broad generalizations about all cyclists being selfish. Don’t post while angry. Leave it till the next day, and take the time to think about the specifics of the situation which got you upset. Sure, it is not as entertaining to watch people having a civilized discussion rather than a pit fight, but you will be more likely to change people’s attitudes.

You might even find that most people share your opinion, with the people that don’t being universally recognized as selfish boors.

as a walker, a big thank you to the cyclists who do ring their bell. In all seriousness, much appreciated.

ppt1ne said :

My point, however, seems to have been given strength through this discourse – there are cyclists out there who do not see the similarities between cars on roads and bikes on charged paths. IMO, a cyclist, when faced with a slow pedestrian RIGHTFULLY occupying the entire left hand lane, for whatever reason (pram, dog, lardo, etc), and with the right hand lane occupied by traffic moving in the opposite direction, should do what a car does when a slow cyclist is doing the same on the road – slow down, be patient, and wait for a safe time to overtake.

Agreed, and nicely put. As a cyclist, with the heart rate up and the adrenaline pumping, it’s hard to have the discipline to slow or stop. But you’ve got the correct procedure right there, and that’s the rules.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

I get mighty angry when dumbass cyclists do not ring their bell. It’s pretty basic concept, bike rider rings bell, step to the left so they can easily pass.
Bike riders, be aware, dogs, old peeps and children are unpredictable and cannot be controlled if shocked. Slow down and be prepared to go off road if this happens. It’s all pretty easy stuff to grasp.

I’m still yet to come across these angry bike riders who knock over women and abuse walkers. However if they do exist, I would like to meet one, I guarantee they would never ride a bike again.

I would also love to meet this guy. Just a little muse – my 3 yo nephew was walking on a bike path, which goes through a kids park. I was standing about 3m away, watching him. A cyclist, who was traveling fast, approached. Nephew was to the left. On approach, Cyclist decided to look me in the ey, grit his teeth, and aggressively yell “keep him out of the way.” He then overtook him, and there was never a problem.

So they are out there, no matter how much of an apparent minority they are.

Again thank you to the (small minority of) people who participated in the discussion respectfully.

I have no anger towards anyone, and I most definitely understand what an individual is. My question did not get entirely addressed, but that is most likely due to my own error in asking it. From the answers, I have gathered that most cyclists do actually respect the pedestrians right of way on shared paths, as the road rules request. I would like to point out however, that my question did not imply that (a) pedestrians should be allowed to take up the whole path, or that (b) cyclists should leave the path.

My point, however, seems to have been given strength through this discourse – there are cyclists out there who do not see the similarities between cars on roads and bikes on charged paths. IMO, a cyclist, when faced with a slow pedestrian RIGHTFULLY occupying the entire left hand lane, for whatever reason (pram, dog, lardo, etc), and with the right hand lane occupied by traffic moving in the opposite direction, should do what a car does when a slow cyclist is doing the same on the road – slow down, be patient, and wait for a safe time to overtake.

So if anyone can see a reason for my opinion to be ammended, please contribute further to the discussion. To the people who insist on getting emotional, or just plain insulting – chill out, bra, it’s just an opinion 😉

tim_c said :

When I’m driving my car I don’t sound my car horn to tell everyone I’m about to overtake so when I’m on my bike, why would I ring a bell everytime I’m about to overtake someone?
quote]
Because I have yet to see a walker with a rear view and side mirrors attached.

Clearly charging registration will fix this problem. It’s already working in this town to keep driving standards high, to keep all dogs well-behaved and to keep all tradies doing their outstanding work. But who to charge …….

Postalgeek said :

I suspect he secretly hoping someone will use his arse as a bike rack.

Somebody probably already has and didn’t ring the next day…Hence the anger.

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

The rules also say this “Dismount and walk across pedestrian crossings and at traffic lights, unless there are bicycle-crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle crossing light.”

I can’t remember when I last saw a cyclist dismount and walk across a pedestrian crossing. And I doubt that many riders actually know this is the law based on daily observations of riders not dismounting at pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. Just as well most car drivers give way to cyclists on pedestrian crossings or there would be many more accidents every day.

I’m guessing one solution may be rider and driver training courses at schools.

@ ppt1ne

We don’t ding our bell to demand you yield right of way. We ding our bell to let you know we’re approaching. This is to assist in:

– alerting you to our presence and, hopefully, discouraging you from randomly staggering about in an unpredictable manner just as we pass you.

– avoiding having you crap your daks or, if of the cardiologically unstable persuasion, having an arrhythmia or infarct when we zip past you on a well-maintained bike you didn’t hear coming.

It’s about safety and politeness. We don’t expect you to immediately surrender the entire path, but as other commentators have pointed out, despite the fact that cyclists must give way to pedestrians, you are also required to make an effort to keep to the left and not make yourself an unnecessary and dangerous obstruction.

Others have also pointed out the fact that we are _required_ to ding it up on a shared path. For similar reasons, all new bicycles sold must have a bell fitted as part of the mandatory basic safety gear (along with reflectors).

I get mighty angry when dumbass cyclists do not ring their bell. It’s pretty basic concept, bike rider rings bell, step to the left so they can easily pass.
Bike riders, be aware, dogs, old peeps and children are unpredictable and cannot be controlled if shocked. Slow down and be prepared to go off road if this happens. It’s all pretty easy stuff to grasp.

I’m still yet to come across these angry bike riders who knock over women and abuse walkers. However if they do exist, I would like to meet one, I guarantee they would never ride a bike again.

Jethro said :

So if you are walking in the middle of the path and blocking it, you are in the wrong. You are required by the rules of the shared path to do so.

That should say, you are required by the rules of the shared path to move out of the centre of the path and keep to the left.

I’m sure you’re just someone out trolling and I shouldn’t feed you…. but…

The rules of the shared path state quote clearly that cyclists should ring their bells to alert pedestrians they are approaching. So cyclists aren’t being rude, or demanding you give way to them, they are simply following the rules of the path. However, the rules also state that whilst bikes must always give way to pedestrians, pedestrians must not block the path. So if you are walking in the middle of the path and blocking it, you are in the wrong. You are required by the rules of the shared path to do so.

Essentially, you are giant douche.

ppt1ne said :

tim_c said :

Well, you might have to ask the cyclists that actually seem to think they have right of way on the cycleways – so far all the cyclists that have responded here seem to recognise their responsibility to share the cycleways. Perhaps you need to conduct a targetted poll on the cycleways, specifically asking those cyclists that you are referring to in your original question?

Do you believe this is viable? Call it a hunch, but I expect at least 80% of every cyclist that posts here to be a member of pedal power, or have social ties to other cyclists.

As a person who doesn’t bike that much or has no ties to any group(s) I can say that I was always taught to give the bell a ring to let people know I was coming up behind them at speed. If the people didn’t hear me (ie headphones in) I slow down a bit and go around just that bit slower as not to scare the hell out of them. If you are taking up the path I ding once more or shout ‘coming through’ and most of the time I get people moving across so I can pass and I give a wave just to let them know that I do care that they got out of the way.

Simple easy to understand and logical

I suspect he secretly hoping someone will use his arse as a bike rack.

Angry People. Angry People Everywhere… 🙁

ppt1ne said :

It may be of interest to note that a friend of mine was walking on a shared path, to the left, with no headphones etc. she was knocked down by a male cyclist, who instead of helping her up, proceeded to abuse her for being on the bike path. A quick read of riot act shows that she is not alone.

Some people are arseholes. We occasionally encounter them walking, cycling and even (or maybe especially) driving. Doesn’t mean everybody else on a path or road is an arsehole. How about we just do the best to share and be courteous (to everyone), and hope that those actions rub off on everyone we encounter. It might just make things more pleasant for ourselves than responding to an arsehole *as* an arsehole…

Grail said :

So in summary, ppt1ne, your friend got hit by an arsehole (or your friend, oblivious to the world due to wearing headphones with music turned up loud, walked in front of a bicycle), and as a result you are declaring war on all cyclists?

not quite – in summary the op is trolling and has made up an event that did not occur to justify the idiocy of his/her comments/

Grail said :

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

Exactly.

I agree with the general sentiment of other cyclists – I ring the bell not because I expect pedestrians to “get out of my way”, but rather so they know I’m coming and don’t make any sudden changes in direction that might result in a collision. If you’ve got a dog, keep it on a leash – that’s what the rules state, and it’s even on the signage alongside the paths. As for keeping left, my experience as a motorist has shown me this is somewhat optional in the ACT, but it does make everyone’s lives easier.

tim_c said :

When I’m driving my car I don’t sound my car horn to tell everyone I’m about to overtake so when I’m on my bike, why would I ring a bell everytime I’m about to overtake someone?

Because cars, etc. have rear-vision mirrors, and you’re expected to use them. People don’t, so riding by without warning tends to startle them. You could argue that the reason this is the reason they have necks instead, but as a cyclist I think it’s easier for me to ring my bell to let a pedestrian know I’m coming than for a pedestrian to continually look around every 10-15 seconds to see if the situation has changed.

To the OP, when there’s space on a shared path for me to safely overtake you, I’m not going to slow down. When there’s insufficient space, or pedestrians/cyclists approaching from the opposite direction, I’ll yield to you and pass when it’s safe. If you don’t want to share, walk on the grass.

ppt1ne said :

I am interested in understanding the reasons for this apparent inconsistency.

I don’t see any inconsistency in behaviour…
Some jerks driving trucks pass smaller vehicles too fast and close
Some jerks driving cars pass cyclists too fast and close
Some jerks riding bikes pass pedestrians too fast and close
Some jerks run past small children too fast and close
etc…

There are lots of jerks, but the vast majority of people are quite polite and I very rarely have any trouble. All you can do is do the right thing, lead by example and be the better man 🙂

In answer to your question, I don’t think cyclists expect right of way, the ding of the bell is just to notify the pedestrian that they are passing. I’m sure you have to admit that it is easier for someone walking on the path to move more to the left and give the cyclist more room to pass, it’s safer and takes no extra effort… don’t be one of the jerks.

So in summary, ppt1ne, your friend got hit by an arsehole (or your friend, oblivious to the world due to wearing headphones with music turned up loud, walked in front of a bicycle), and as a result you are declaring war on all cyclists?

ppt1ne said :

Ayone going to answer the question? Or just more self-assured ego tickling? Jeez.

And btw, the bike paths previously referred to are indeed shared paths.

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

We don’t. We are letting you know we’re coming. No surprises = no accidents. If you are walking towards the left of the path, just carry on. If not, move towards the left and stay there. But be aware of shrubs etc overhanging the other side that may necessitate the rider going off path to be safe.

In my experience many people from other countries don’t get the “keep left on footpaths” thing.

Cyclists that don’t ding for other cyclists then flash past 30cm from my handlebars – pet hate. You give us all a bad name.

Cyclists ring their bell to inform you they’re coming past. Yes, it scares (some) people if you come screaming past with no notification. Also many pedestrians are unpredictable and can’t walk in a straight line, or just randomly side-step.

ToastFliesRED said :

ppt1ne said :

Ayone going to answer the question? Or just more self-assured ego tickling? Jeez.

And btw, the bike paths previously referred to are indeed shared paths.

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

Riot act needs more people like you, sir

Possibly the closest you can get to an answer is that it depends on the individual cyclist. Some like to believe they have right of way on shared bike paths/footpaths, some like to believe they are immune to road rules when riding on the road, some expect right of way while cycling across a paedestrial crosswalk (zebra crossing), some are normal rational human beings who are courteous and obey the road rules. And this is not to say that any of those groups are mutually exclusive for even normal rational human beings sometimes have bad days and sometimes, just occasionally the other elements have a moment of lucidity in their thinking.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

ppt1ne said :

herp derp cyclists are ruining us all, herp derp

Is that all you got from the discussion? Perhaps it is you that needs more attention from teachers..

ppt1ne said :

It may be of interest to note that a friend of mine was walking on a shared path, to the left, with no headphones etc. she was knocked down by a male cyclist, who instead of helping her up, proceeded to abuse her for being on the bike path. A quick read of riot act shows that she is not alone.

*rolls eyes*

As for your implied question of why cyclists use the shared paths instead of the road? Do you walk on the road, where pedestrians are allowed? Why not?

tim_c said :

Well, you might have to ask the cyclists that actually seem to think they have right of way on the cycleways – so far all the cyclists that have responded here seem to recognise their responsibility to share the cycleways. Perhaps you need to conduct a targetted poll on the cycleways, specifically asking those cyclists that you are referring to in your original question?

Do you believe this is viable? Call it a hunch, but I expect at least 80% of every cyclist that posts here to be a member of pedal power, or have social ties to other cyclists.

Why do cyclists expect pedestrians to give cyclists room to pass and keep left and keep their dogs on a leash?

Because those are the road rules.

c_c said :

ppt1ne said :

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

Because unless you’re a lardo, bike paths and most foot paths are wide enough for a cyclist to pass on the right hand side, and so long as they do it in an appropriate manner with fair warning, should be allowed to do so.

Bicycles are faster.

Bicycles are more cumbersome to stop and remount.

Convention on paths and roads is for slower persons/vehicles to give way and allow faster vehicles to pass.

Difficult concepts admittedly, given so many (including motorists) have trouble staying in their lane or on the left hand side of the road but most manage.

This convention you speak of, why does it not apply on our roads? In many instances cars are required to slow down and give way to the slower cyclists.

And what if you are a ‘lardo’ and took up more than the left lane? I feel that cyclists should still have to slow down for him. That’s what we do for trucks when driving on the road.

It may be of interest to note that a friend of mine was walking on a shared path, to the left, with no headphones etc. she was knocked down by a male cyclist, who instead of helping her up, proceeded to abuse her for being on the bike path. A quick read of riot act shows that she is not alone.

Thank you to the people contributing nicely to the discussion.

I too expect the same from pedestrians. My confusion stems from an apparent difference between cars v cyclists on roads, and pedestrians v cyclists on shared paths. The difference being what is expected of the smaller, slower, mode of transport in each circumstance.

I am interested in understanding the reasons for this apparent inconsistency.

Well, you might have to ask the cyclists that actually seem to think they have right of way on the cycleways – so far all the cyclists that have responded here seem to recognise their responsibility to share the cycleways. Perhaps you need to conduct a targetted poll on the cycleways, specifically asking those cyclists that you are referring to in your original question?

c_c said :

ppt1ne said :

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

Because unless you’re a lardo, bike paths and most foot paths are wide enough for a cyclist to pass on the right hand side, and so long as they do it in an appropriate manner with fair warning, should be allowed to do so.

What about a situation that involves two pedestrians walking in opposite directions, leaving no room at that time to safely overtake? Surely, slowing down and waiting is the right things for a cyclist to do?

It may be of interest to note that my friend has been knocked to the ground, while walking to the left, by an aggressive cyclist who insisted it was her fault. Light reading on riot act shows that she is not alone.

Bicycles are faster.

Bicycles are more cumbersome to stop and remount.

Convention on paths and roads is for slower persons/vehicles to give way and allow faster vehicles to pass.

Difficult concepts admittedly, given so many (including motorists) have trouble staying in their lane or on the left hand side of the road but most manage.

Are you the guy who guys sprinting down the footpath in Woden with his headphones in expecting people on bikes (or on foot) to get out of his way? Probably not, I don’ think that guy can read.

I don’t like being on the footpath either, but there are some cases where there’s no other option between bike paths. There is room enough for a bike and a walker even on a footpath if you’re not an arse about it.

ppt1ne said :

Ayone going to answer the question? Or just more self-assured ego tickling? Jeez.

And btw, the bike paths previously referred to are indeed shared paths.

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

Possibly the closest you can get to an answer is that it depends on the individual cyclist. Some like to believe they have right of way on shared bike paths/footpaths, some like to believe they are immune to road rules when riding on the road, some expect right of way while cycling across a paedestrial crosswalk (zebra crossing), some are normal rational human beings who are courteous and obey the road rules. And this is not to say that any of those groups are mutually exclusive for even normal rational human beings sometimes have bad days and sometimes, just occasionally the other elements have a moment of lucidity in their thinking.

ppt1ne said :

Indeed, my friend. Intelligent people may see where I’m going with this…

I’m pretty clever and all i can see if that you are going to try and be an asshole. Unless you are blocking the path all I want from a pedestrian when i call bike is for you to do nothing, don’t take a step to the left, don’t make a jump to the right. just keep walking without a sudden change of direction.

johnboy said :

Firstly a sure sign of an ignorant bigot is someone assuming that all members of a group they’re complaining about share collective knowledge, and guilt.

Secondly as a bike rider on the paths if I ding it is to let people know I am coming up from behind them.

If they are on the left then this is a courtesy.

If they are blocking the path in both directions it is to request they move over.

If two drivers going side by side were completely blocking the
road slowly I think you’d get more than a polite bip of the horn.

I thought you alright. I was wrong.

ppt1ne said :

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

Because unless you’re a lardo, bike paths and most foot paths are wide enough for a cyclist to pass on the right hand side, and so long as they do it in an appropriate manner with fair warning, should be allowed to do so.

Bicycles are faster.

Bicycles are more cumbersome to stop and remount.

Convention on paths and roads is for slower persons/vehicles to give way and allow faster vehicles to pass.

Difficult concepts admittedly, given so many (including motorists) have trouble staying in their lane or on the left hand side of the road but most manage.

ppt1ne said :

herp derp cyclists are ruining us all, herp derp

thatsnotme said :

You can’t have your cake, and eat it too. Stay on the roads, or share.

You do know what ‘share’ means, right? That to share the path, both parties need to do their bit? And that if you’re making a conscious decision that even if a cyclist gives you a polite ding, you’re not going to move, that the only one not sharing the path is you?

Indeed, my friend. Intelligent people may see where I’m going with this…

jase! said :

“Why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths”

ummm, maybe because they are bike paths?

I was led to believe (back in my days at NCDC) that these paths are actually gazetted as footpaths – not bike paths – due to some legalese reason of expediency. Over to you …

Ayone going to answer the question? Or just more self-assured ego tickling? Jeez.

And btw, the bike paths previously referred to are indeed shared paths.

So again, why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths/footpaths?

When I’m driving my car I don’t sound my car horn to tell everyone I’m about to overtake so when I’m on my bike, why would I ring a bell everytime I’m about to overtake someone?
But when I ride my bike on the cycleway, I expect pedestrians (and other cyclists) to not take up the whole width of the path so that I and others can overtake/pass – just the same as when I’m in my car, I expect cyclists not to take up the whole road so other road users can’t pass.

My bell dinging means i’m coming past, i don’t expect you to do anything except continue on the path you are heading. I’ll take care of the rest including going off road to accomodate you. I’ll repeat some of what ‘Jase!’ wrote

all i ask from pedestrians is:
– to be predictable;
– if you are wearing headphones and don’t hear me call bike it is your problem, not mine, so don’t get cranky at me because you get surprised; and
– if you are walking at night, use a flashing light or torch or something that makes you non-invisible on the more poorly lit areas of bike path

Lack of originality, sadly predictable, limited use of Caps Lock, no exclamation marks. Poor effort 1/10. See me after class.

You can’t have your cake, and eat it too. Stay on the roads, or share.

You do know what ‘share’ means, right? That to share the path, both parties need to do their bit? And that if you’re making a conscious decision that even if a cyclist gives you a polite ding, you’re not going to move, that the only one not sharing the path is you?

Firstly a sure sign of an ignorant bigot is someone assuming that all members of a group they’re complaining about share collective knowledge, and guilt.

Secondly as a bike rider on the paths if I ding it is to let people know I am coming up from behind them.

If they are on the left then this is a courtesy.

If they are blocking the path in both directions it is to request they move over.

If two drivers going side by side were completely blocking the road slowly I think you’d get more than a polite bip of the horn.

“Why do cyclists still expect right of way on bike paths”

ummm, maybe because they are bike paths?

all i ask from pedestrians is:
a. to be predictable.
b. if you are going to take up the whole path be aware of your surroundings. 3 or 4 mothers walking side by side with prams means you need to look behind to see what is coming
c. control your dog, this means on a lead, when people are passing shorten the lead as much as practicable
d. if you are wearing headphones and don’t hear me call bike it is your problem, not mine, so don’t get cranky at me because you get surprised.

I’m someone that rides and walks regularly so think there is more than enough room for both.

We can all share, sounding your bell is just a polite way to ask for the 2 seconds that it takes to pass to get past to have the path.

When walking, I find it worse when cycalists don’t have bells and don’t sound ‘bike at least i know. It’s dangerous as you have no idea there is a bike approaching behind you. Pedestrians can be unpredictable and move all over the path, if they are walking dog’s this can be even worse. Having a bell is a great way for avoiding injuries and sharing the footpath.