[Closed] selfish pedestrians on shared use paths

Shared use needs a bell.

they seem to prefer my using the bell.

They were correct.
It's a path for pedestrians and bicycles. Not unicycles.

Up until 1994, a cycle was defined as a bicycle, tricycle, or cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle. A unicycle seemed to be exempt from many laws applicable to bicycles.
However in 1994 the law changed, with Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 1519: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. In Part 1, Section 1 (Preliminary), Item 4 (Interpretation general) it states: “pedal cycle” means a unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, or cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case mechanically propelled unless it is an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such class as is to be treated as not being a motor vehicle for the purposes of the 1984 Act.

^^^ this contrary to what the fashion victims would have you believe a ting bell/horn or a old school ringing bell are essential if you are using a shared path. A couple or rings as you approach from behind and they move to one side combined with a cheers as you go past and off you go.

I learnt a long time ago that if somebody is being a grumpy argumentative sod just be full of the joys of spring and bouncy about how nice it is to be outside and to ignore their moaning and if you are feeling in a mischievous mood talk over them as they start to rant about how you saw a rare bird plant etc it will drive them nuts and will shut them up. Don't let them drag you down to their level and spoil your day

Quality trollage.
Slow down and stop showing off. 😀

talk over them as they start to rant about how you saw a rare bird plant etc

I'm confused about the bell. Are you suggesting it's useful to use a bell when you're approaching people coming towards you who can see from such further away than they can heat your bell? Will this stop them deliberately obstructing you because they incorrectly think you're not supposed to be there?

When approaching people from behind I sometimes call out "ding ding" and always seem to get a positive reaction (and is audible f from much further away than a bell)

[list]Approaching from behind, nice loud single ding.

If group busy talking and not aware of you, nice loud single ding.

If you had a proper bike with handlebars you could fit a bell..although nothing stopping you just carrying a handlebar with a bell fixed to it.
It can obviously be used to ward off lemming type pedestrians, with a swinging motion..

Personally I don't use a bell, if they don't hear my hope freehub then a nice long skid gets their attention.

aracer - Member
...Flame away. What did I do wrong?

Try wearing a Freddy Kruger mask and brandishing a sabre. 🙂

people don't expect to be challenged for their behaviour by other members of the public these days so when they are they automatically become defensive.

Indeed. I had the pleasure of being able to explain to a rather large chap in a flash motor that passing as close as he did was quite scary. Once he'd got out of his car and around to my side, he defensively stuck his 50 inch perfume-soaked chest right in my face whilst mumbling about 'cyclist can't' or something along those lines...

Whilst I agree that cyclists should be considerate towards pedestrians, I'm constantly bemused by the following scenario...

Riding along one of my local Sustrans routes, staying to the left, on a wide straight section, with clear sight for about a mile. There is a group of people walking towards me, strung out across the entire width of the path. [u]If[/u] and when they finally notice my presence, they all move to the same side of the path as me (i.e. their right)

Now, on the law of averages, some of them must be drivers, so you'd kind of expect them to follow accepted norms and move over to their left.
Even if they're all non-drivers, you'd think that survival instinct would cause them to move out of the way of the impending danger (even if it was on percieved danger, because I has slowed right down and made sure that there was plenty of room for us to pass by each other safely)

People are just strange, I suppose.

P.S.Why is it that, on my local shared use paths, the broken glass is unerringly on the cycle side of the path.

Even though we drive on the left people seem to like being on the right. I've noticed this is many situations. Maybe, on this one point, the Euros are right.

I surely can't be the only one who meets other cyclists on paths like this who want to ride on the right (had one about 5 minutes earlier).

As someone pointed out on the first page, you were clearly looking for a confrontation, and you got one. What's the problem?

Anything like this can be avoided, you just have to say nothing and carry on, by arguing with them you haven't achieved anything constructive just re-enforced opinion and stereotypes.

I used to argue with ignorant peds. and walkers, but there's really absolutely no point.

Now, on the law of averages, some of them must be drivers, so you'd kind of expect them to follow accepted norms and move over to their left.

This is the thing. Most of us on bikes are thinking from some kind of roadcraft perspective. At least those of us who ride bikes a lot, labour over them, post on forums about them and all that kind of stuff. People out for a walk are generally in a completely different mindset, no different from if they were on the pavement or walking through a field: they're just walking.

I surely can't be the only one who meets other cyclists on paths like this who want to ride on the right (had one about 5 minutes earlier).

Similarly, not all cyclists drive, or ride on the road, or even care.

These incidents happen but no one is really looking for them.
How we react may vary but this does not make them any more or less likely to happen.

FWIW I dont think it is arguing but I do agree its pointless saying anything

[quote=nickc ]As someone pointed out on the first page, you were clearly looking for a confrontation, and you got one. What's the problem?
Anything like this can be avoided, you just have to say nothing and carry on

Did they? I think you're the first as everybody else realised I just wanted to go for a ride. In case you missed it I couldn't just carry on as I'd had to stop and dismount. On the contrary I'm fairly sure it was the peds who were after a confrontation and I made the mistake of giving them one (didn't realise at the time it was deliberate).

This is certainly the first time I've had such a confrontation whilst out riding my uni, but then it's the first time I've ever been forced to dismount by other people being selfish (probably a few times due to other people not being aware, but that's a totally different situation).

I think you have to accept that most humans are really not that intelligent and cannot be rationally reasoned with. They act selfishly and irrationally because they are too stupid to do otherwise.

More of less sums it up. I am self-consciously super-polite and thankful to pedestrians and equestrians who do the right thing - bit of good public relations and hope they will pass it on.

When faced with selfish / foolish individuals I usually come to a complete stop and give them a hard stare. Point made, but no need to get into pointless discussion. Does help that I'm a hairy ginger tank, mind.

Sorry to hear about your spot of bother.

People out for a walk are generally in a completely different mindset, no different from if they were on the pavement or walking through a field: they're just walking.

Similarly, not all cyclists drive, or ride on the road,

or even care.

[i] On the contrary I'm fairly sure it was the peds who were after a confrontation and I made the mistake of giving them one (didn't realise at the time it was deliberate).[/i]

well, now you know, and you won't make that mistake again. In any case, do we really have the right to not have things get in our way that we have to give way to?

In any case, do we really have the right to not have things get in our way that we have to give way to?

Well, it would appear that some pedestrians do.

Mostly I think peds probably have that right, get on board anything that goes faster than walking speed, and I reckon the onus is you to give way.

I was wheeling my road bike down some steps onto a shared use trail when a woman who was also walking down the steps make some very loud comments about hating cyclists. I wasn't even doing anything that could've been deemed a nuisance. I just gave her my Paddington Bear hard stare.

Aracer - you should write to your MP and demand action, here's a draft you can have for free

Dear Rupert (or whatever your f***ing name is),

Summet happened today and I wasn't best chuffed. You need to pull your finger out sunshine.

Yours Humbly and Respectfully

Aracer.

The End.

In any case, do we really have the right to not have things get in our way that we have to give way to?

If that gives them the right to completely block a path which is wide enough for me to pass them if they show a bit of consideration then presumably not. I'm not sure the requirement to "respect them" or any other rules about priority on shared use paths gives than that right, but I'll allow it as a possibility for the sake of argument.

Because even if they do have that right then it is still selfish (as in the thread title) and rude to do so.

Though of course if it hadn't been for the dog I'd have just ridden by tutting, and I'm fairly sure I have the right not to have an out of control dog run in front of me.

[img] [/img]

@thestabiliser [b]her[/b] name is Harriet, and I won't be wasting my time expecting her to do anything useful about anything. Though I suppose actually it wasn't in her constituency anyway.

A WOMAN?!!! The worlds gone mad.

Yeah, before you know it they'll be letting them become Prime Minister, and I'm sure that will upset a lot of people.

Mostly I think peds probably have that right, get on board anything that goes faster than walking speed, and I reckon the onus is you to give way.

Mostly I think peds probably have that right, get on board anything that goes faster than walking speed, and I reckon the onus is you to give way.

This is fine, but surely it doesn't mean nobody has to give a stuff about common courtesy?
I ride to work through a park and often come across big clumps of people spread across the entire path, which is wide enough for about 5 or 6 people to pass comfortably. If somebody [i]needs[/i] to give way then I accept that should be me. But it does get my goat when the group can see me coming from miles away and could easily arrange themselves into a differently shaped clump that means there's room for everyone to go happily on their way- but they don't.
I'm not talking about wanting to go blatting through without having to slow down or anything, just a bit of give and take.

When people don't do this it's just really inconsiderate and selfish IMO. Shared use paths would be much better places for everybody if everyone was a little less wrapped up in themselves and aware of what's going on around them.

Can we have a quick synopsis please?

Can we have a quick synopsis please?

I was reasonably sympathetic until I realised this was a unicycle story.

😉

I think peds probably have that right, get on board anything that goes faster than walking speed, and I reckon the onus is you to give way

All it requires is a little consideration form both sides. When one side does not have it you get issues. To always blame the faster mode of transport is a strange one.
It is far easier to step sideways on foot than on a bike.

OP: Just juggle some fire clubs or knives - people will move.

Pedestrians aren't traffic, so we as cyclists shouldn't expect them to behave as such.

In ten years of a daily commute down a shared path, I can't remember a single confrontation with a pedestrian. Maybe because I slow down, use my bell, and say "excuse me".

[quote=ransos ]In ten years of a daily commute down a shared path, I can't remember a single confrontation with a pedestrian. Maybe because I slow down, use my bell, and say "excuse me".

I suspect it's actually because you've never met any selfish idiots, given I'm struggling to see how any of that would have helped in this case.

I suspect it's actually because you've never met any selfish idiots, given I'm struggling to see how any of that would have helped in this case.

Ten years of daily commuting is getting on for 5,000 journeys. The law of averages suggests that your suspicion is almost certainly incorrect.

That's not really the way the "law of averages" works*, though if you're so sure how about you explain how any of that would have helped when they could clearly see me from far further away than they could hear a bell and your "slowed down" speed is probably no slower than I was cruising at before I slowed to about half that to pass them?

*if it does work the way you imply then presumably you've also met a group of 6 people, one on an invalid scooter with 2 small yappy dogs filling the whole path on your commute, oh and a unicycle.

[b]Highway Code, Rule 56[/b]

Keep dogs on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-about-animals-47-to-58/other-animals-56-to-58

Largely ignored by most dog owners.

Interesting, but sadly it doesn't seem there is a law behind it.

How many dog walkers would consult the Highway Code for best practice?

Mobility scooters seem to be immune to any kind of rules. A woman knocked me down with her mobility scooter when I was standing on a pavement holding my 18 month old son and then ran over my leg! I saw a bloke today who launched his mobility scooter through a set of red lights across a busy junction.

I've got to be fair here vicky and point out that the mobility scooter rider/driver did nothing wrong at all.