The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

[ColinOldnCranky]

It's much better to walk on the left - cyclists approach from behind and can ride (slowly) behind you until a gap appears. If you walk on the right then either you or the oncoming cyclist has to take evasive action or you both have to wait (or collide).

Sorry Biff but you are in an alternate universe.

Yeah, no problem at all. IF cyclists approaching from behind DO ride slowly behind you until a gap appears. The problem peds face many times each walk is the rider that simply times his motion to slide between them and another oncoming rider or oncoming ped.

Regardless of your own riding ettiquette, pls don't deny that those riders are there, in numbers. And it is THOSE riders are what should determine the action of peds taking responsibility for their own safety.

I have never judged such peds adversely but amny cyclists do. Those peds are not arrogant, selfish or spoiling for a fight. They are simply the smarter peds.

Sorry Colin but I think it is you who is in an alternate universe. I've seen this situation unfold several times now - pedestrians walking on the right meets a cyclist coming towards them - cyclist stops as they see a cyclist coming from the opposite direction - pedestrians put nose in air (for real, they actually did this) and step onto the opposite side of the path without looking causing the other cyclist to take evasive action. Yet another close call and not because the cyclists were behaving badly. Pedestrians can walk on the wrong side of the ROAD if there is no footpath or nature strip (amazing how they forget that last clause) but it doesn't scale to shared paths - oncoming traffic doesn't have the room to manouver as they would on a road. Two wrongs don't make a right, having pedestrians on shared paths behaving badly isn't going to stop some cylists behaving badly - it will just make things worse for cylists who are trying to do the right thing.

The thing is that it is the sane peds legitimate business if they wish to improve their chances against an unseen hazard. If there are insane people out there on the path who do as you say then that is another issue which does not make the rationale any less compelling for the rest. No person is gonna deliberately follow their example unless they are one of those idiot cyclist-hating peds that are trying to make a point of some kind.

I can't recall ever seeing one do as you state and I consider that spending around 3000 hours on a range of PSPs to be a good pbservational base.

I have, on the other hand, seen peds doing freaky things when a cyclist behind them tings their bell or otherwise surprises them. But that is the outcome of surprise and not seeing the path of the hazard moving to them - typically restricted to when a cyclist is passing a ped (from behind) that is about to veer right off the path at a right fork or junction without a check. Walking on what some consider to the the "wrong" side puts the hazard right in front of them. No surprises.

Anyway, the rules give peds the choice. Which is the stand taken all the time when cyclists are asked why they claiming a the lane. That argument goes all ways, not just the way of cyclists.

It seems that someone needs to make your case to the traffic authorities if they believe it is an issue. I am far from convinced that walking towards cyclists is less safe for a ped than the alternative. I am readily convinced however that it annoys the hell out of some riders. c'est la vis.

[g-boaf]

What he described above I have seen - just because you've not seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen ever. Although I know you'll clarify your statement that you never said that and so on and so forth.

Sometimes the pedestrians move so late and so suddenly that you've got to swerve off onto very uneven ground which is a safety hazard. Where do you go if there are fences or gutters on both sides? Have a crash yourself? I was the victim of one such pedestrian. I can show you the scar left over if you don't believe me.


I openly get very angry with pedestrians on the wrong side of the path. It is dangerous for everyone. They should have rego and the law should be changed to stop it.

[Percrime]

The other problem is that its idiotic. You know the situation your grandparents were talking about when they were taught that? It was walking on a country road. In a 100 zone One with maybe a car every half hour. And no verges... shoulder or footpath. In which case walking facing oncoming traffic makes perfect sense. And thats the only time it does.


Let me just reiterate that. ANYONE who translates that to a shared path with hundreds of people going past any point a day is really really really not smart.

No speed limit on open roads when I was taught that, no KPH either.

Mark

Yeah I thought I needed to keep it simple and current for the intended audience. Those who would walk on the wrong side of the road. But apparently it used too many words and so could not be read.

Its interesting watching what happens when peds walking on the wrong side of the path meet peds walking on the right side. It ALWAYS involves someone stepping sideways without looking behind them.

[blkmcs]

...

Its interesting watching what happens when peds walking on the wrong side of the path meet peds walking on the right side. It ALWAYS involves someone stepping sideways without looking behind them.

Which is only ever a problem when an approaching cyclist fails to ring their bell, in my experience a bell stops them in their tracks.
In fact if two pedestrians are walking on the left and one is faster than the other then the faster walker will step out to overtake the slower walker, the problem remains the same.

I'm 100% with Colin on this one and when I'm a pedestrian on a shared path I generally walk on the right rather that trust my safety to cyclists, sometimes walking on the left is the safer option, my choice!

I do not discount any of the horror tales mentioned above but isolated experiences where walking on the right has caused a problem do not negate the overall safety aspect.

[biker jk]

...

Its interesting watching what happens when peds walking on the wrong side of the path meet peds walking on the right side. It ALWAYS involves someone stepping sideways without looking behind them.

Which is only ever a problem when an approaching cyclist fails to ring their bell, in my experience a bell stops them in their tracks.
In fact if two pedestrians are walking on the left and one is faster than the other then the faster walker will step out to overtake the slower walker, the problem remains the same.

I'm 100% with Colin on this one and when I'm a pedestrian on a shared path I generally walk on the right rather that trust my safety to cyclists, sometimes walking on the left is the safer option, my choice!

I do not discount any of the horror tales mentioned above but isolated experiences where walking on the right has caused a problem do not negate the overall safety aspect.

It's your choice to break the law then because you are required to keep left. There is no justification to walk on the right hand side of a shared path unless passing another pedestrian.

[g-boaf]

...

Its interesting watching what happens when peds walking on the wrong side of the path meet peds walking on the right side. It ALWAYS involves someone stepping sideways without looking behind them.

Which is only ever a problem when an approaching cyclist fails to ring their bell, in my experience a bell stops them in their tracks.
In fact if two pedestrians are walking on the left and one is faster than the other then the faster walker will step out to overtake the slower walker, the problem remains the same.

I'm 100% with Colin on this one and when I'm a pedestrian on a shared path I generally walk on the right rather that trust my safety to cyclists, sometimes walking on the left is the safer option, my choice!

I do not discount any of the horror tales mentioned above but isolated experiences where walking on the right has caused a problem do not negate the overall safety aspect.

What happens when the cyclist rings their bell but it isn't heard by the side steeping pedestrian because they've got Bose Noise Cancelling headphones on and cannot hear a thing, and the other pedestrian is looking at their phone instead of where they are going.

Is that the cyclists fault now because they weren't taking enough care, or some other reason that I've not thought of - but basically attributing blame to the cyclist and absolving the pedestrian of responsibility to take care in watching where they are going?

[blkmcs]

...

Its interesting watching what happens when peds walking on the wrong side of the path meet peds walking on the right side. It ALWAYS involves someone stepping sideways without looking behind them.

Which is only ever a problem when an approaching cyclist fails to ring their bell, in my experience a bell stops them in their tracks.
In fact if two pedestrians are walking on the left and one is faster than the other then the faster walker will step out to overtake the slower walker, the problem remains the same.

I'm 100% with Colin on this one and when I'm a pedestrian on a shared path I generally walk on the right rather that trust my safety to cyclists, sometimes walking on the left is the safer option, my choice!

I do not discount any of the horror tales mentioned above but isolated experiences where walking on the right has caused a problem do not negate the overall safety aspect.

It's your choice to break the law then because you are required to keep left. There is no justification to walk on the right hand side of a shared path unless passing another pedestrian.

In Western Australia there is no such law to break and I suspect that the same situation exists in other states; the justification is my safety.

[warthog1]

If anyone needed further evidence as to why you should avoid psp's like the plague the above discussion provides it.
Rules are provided to attempt to bring some sort of order to the situation.
Advocating for pedestrians to ignore them is advocating for chaos IMO.

[blkmcs]

...

Its interesting watching what happens when peds walking on the wrong side of the path meet peds walking on the right side. It ALWAYS involves someone stepping sideways without looking behind them.

Which is only ever a problem when an approaching cyclist fails to ring their bell, in my experience a bell stops them in their tracks.
In fact if two pedestrians are walking on the left and one is faster than the other then the faster walker will step out to overtake the slower walker, the problem remains the same.

I'm 100% with Colin on this one and when I'm a pedestrian on a shared path I generally walk on the right rather that trust my safety to cyclists, sometimes walking on the left is the safer option, my choice!

I do not discount any of the horror tales mentioned above but isolated experiences where walking on the right has caused a problem do not negate the overall safety aspect.

What happens when the cyclist rings their bell but it isn't heard by the side steeping pedestrian because they've got Bose Noise Cancelling headphones on and cannot hear a thing, and the other pedestrian is looking at their phone instead of where they are going.

Is that the cyclists fault now because they weren't taking enough care, or some other reason that I've not thought of - but basically attributing blame to the cyclist and absolving the pedestrian of responsibility to take care in watching where they are going?

If a cyclists sees a situation where a pedestrian might side step and the cyclist does not take appropriate action then yes the cyclist would be at fault.
Whenever a road/path user runs into another user from behind it is fairly clear where the bulk of the responsibility lies, both parties may share the blame but the larger part must fall on the overtaking party.

[blkmcs]

If anyone needed further evidence as to why you should avoid psp's like the plague the above discussion provides it.
Rules are provided to attempt to bring some sort of order to the situation.
Advocating for pedestrians to ignore them is advocating for chaos IMO.

I have not seen anyone advocating for pedestrians to ignore the rules.
This year I have ridden over 3,000 kilometres on shared paths and almost all the rule breaking I have seen has been done by cyclists, my interactions with pedestrians have been trouble free apart from two instances with dog walkers.

[g-boaf]

If a cyclists sees a situation where a pedestrian might side step and the cyclist does not take appropriate action then yes the cyclist would be at fault.
Whenever a road/path user runs into another user from behind it is fairly clear where the bulk of the responsibility lies, both parties may share the blame but the larger part must fall on the overtaking party.

I give up... I will now support the rights of pedestrians to do as they wish, and to be able to injure and hurt cyclists however and whenever they want.

Doing otherwise and advocating for sensible use of wide shared paths is impossible. But I will also argue strongly in favour of motorists rights to own the road, and that cyclists don't belong on the road - in this case. I can be devils advocate too.

[zero]

If anyone needed further evidence as to why you should avoid psp's like the plague the above discussion provides it.
Rules are provided to attempt to bring some sort of order to the situation.
Advocating for pedestrians to ignore them is advocating for chaos IMO.

I have not seen anyone advocating for pedestrians to ignore the rules.
This year I have ridden over 3,000 kilometres on shared paths and almost all the rule breaking I have seen has been done by cyclists, my interactions with pedestrians have been trouble free apart from two instances with dog walkers.

Step into path of a vehicle applies to sharepaths. The red man on road crossings of sharepaths apply to pedestrians, there are 2 examples I routinely see broken by pedestrians.

[biker jk]

It's your choice to break the law then because you are required to keep left. There is no justification to walk on the right hand side of a shared path unless passing another pedestrian.

In Western Australia there is no such law to break and I suspect that the same situation exists in other states; the justification is my safety.

Well even in WA you are required to keep left as a pedestrian on a shared path. It's certainly also the case in NSW.

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documen ... 367576.PDF

[blkmcs]

It's your choice to break the law then because you are required to keep left. There is no justification to walk on the right hand side of a shared path unless passing another pedestrian.

In Western Australia there is no such law to break and I suspect that the same situation exists in other states; the justification is my safety.

Well even in WA you are required to keep left as a pedestrian on a shared path. It's certainly also the case in NSW.

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documen ... 367576.PDF

That document simply advises keeping left, there is no requirement, please read the legislation.

Road Traffic Act
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/st ... epage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Road Traffic Code
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/st ... epage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part 14 starting on page 216 deals with pedestrians.
Section 203 (3) & (4) are of interest.

(3) A pedestrian travelling along a carriageway —
(a) shall, where practicable, travel on the carriageway, or on
the side of the carriageway, used by vehicles travelling
in the opposite direction and keep as far to the right side
of the carriageway as is practicable; and
(b) shall not travel on the carriageway alongside more than
one other pedestrian or vehicle travelling on the
carriageway in the same direction as the pedestrian,
unless the pedestrian is overtaking other pedestrians.
Modified penalty: 1 PU
(4) Despite subregulation (3), where a vehicle approaches a
pedestrian on a carriageway, on the same side as the pedestrian,
then the pedestrian shall, if possible, immediately move off the
carriageway, and shall not move back onto the carriageway,
until the vehicle has passed him or her.
Modified penalty: 1 PU

Whether or not a shared path is a carriageway I'll leave to others to decide.

[zero]

Whether or not a shared path is a carriageway I'll leave to others to decide.

If horseless carriages can't drive on it, then it aint a carriageway.

[biker jk]

The legislation you point to relates to roads not shared paths. The document I linked under "Shared Path Rules" says "Riders and pedestrians must keep left on shared paths and footpaths unless overtaking" [my emphasis added].

[snortin]

Further to that jk, a CARRIAGEWAY is defined as

"carriageway means a portion of a road that is improved,
designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, and includes
the shoulders, and areas, including embankments, at the side or
centre of the carriageway, used for the stopping or parking of
vehicles; and, where a road has 2 or more of those portions
divided by a median strip, the expression means each of those
portions, separately"

Road Traffic Code 2000
Part 1 Preliminary
r. 3
page 8 Version 03-e0-02 As at 13 Apr 2013
Extract from http://www.slp.wa.gov.au" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, see that website for further information

It is a shared path, with arrows for direction of travel for pedestrians and bicycles (that tell you to keep on the left side of the path). I don't understand why you wouldn't keep left unless overtaking? Same principle as a road.
Bicycles should be travelling at a speed that would allow them to stop if a pedestrian steps in front of them to pass another pedestrian (obviously if they jump right into your path as you are passing then they have contributed to the accident - cyclists are required to GIVE WAY, pedestrians DO NOT have RIGHT OF WAY, there is a difference).

[ColinOldnCranky]

If anyone needed further evidence as to why you should avoid psp's like the plague the above discussion provides it.
Rules are provided to attempt to bring some sort of order to the situation.
Advocating for pedestrians to ignore them is advocating for chaos IMO.

I have not seen anyone advocating for pedestrians to ignore the rules.
This year I have ridden over 3,000 kilometres on shared paths and almost all the rule breaking I have seen has been done by cyclists, my interactions with pedestrians have been trouble free apart from two instances with dog walkers.

Exactly my experience. Pretty much daily. And one that I regularly mention, not just on this current discussion.

Cyclists, by and large and in my considerable experience, are worse sharers of the paths than peds.

A bit like drivers are on roads that cyclists wish to share.

btw this issue was not so obvious twenty years ago. Again a bit like the situation of motorists and cyclists.

[zero]

Pedestrians are awful sharers of paths particularly once they are in groups.

The only thing that bears mentioning is that the pedestrian is not inherently dangerous though, the inherent danger on paths is the cyclists momentum, and thats why the -standard- of cyclist behaviour is the one that should be higher.

[VRE]

All path and road users can be dangerous. Idiocy isn't restricted to any one mode of transport.

[Percrime]

THats certainly true. We have seen our very own advocate walking on the wrong side of bike paths. And made me likely to be far more hostile next time.. instead of my usual comment of "Bloody Americans..we walk on the left over here; learn it or go home"

Idiots are idiots.

[fingy]

How much path do you need

[blkmcs]

The legislation you point to relates to roads not shared paths. The document I linked under "Shared Path Rules" says "Riders and pedestrians must keep left on shared paths and footpaths unless overtaking" [my emphasis added].

\
The section I quoted is relevant to this discussion because in earlier posts walking on the road facing oncoming traffic was dismissed as being from a bygone age when in fact it is still a requirement under current legislation. I did point out that it relates to carriageways.

In case you missed it the first time, I'll say it again. The document you quoted is advice only, it is not the legislation.
Show me where in the legislation it says that pedestrians must keep left and I'll give due consideration to changing my walking habits.

[warthog1]

In case you missed it the first time, I'll say it again. The document you quoted is advice only, it is not the legislation.
Show me where in the legislation it says that pedestrians must keep left and I'll give due consideration to changing my walking habits.

So you'll ignore any painted dividing lines and directional lines also. After all they are only advice or pretty decorations on the pathway.
You'll also disregard the whole keep left convention that is common knowledge and analogous from the road system. Perhaps you choose to ride your bicycle against the traffic on the right hand side of the road also, so you can see any on coming traffic, and swerve to avoid it.

[Hergest]

How much path do you need

Nice broadslide.