BandedRail wrote:ColinOldnCranky wrote:Biffidus wrote: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.