13 posts • Page 1 of 1
I heard a headline on the news break tonight saying a pedestrian had been killed when hit by a bike on the shared pathway near the Bell Tower today. The report mentioned some sort of inquiry into whether there should be separate paths for cyclists and pedestrians*.
Does anybody have any more details? I ride that path most days of the week so I'm concerned for all users of the path.
(* of course, the answer is a resounding yes, but we shouldn't need to kill someone to find the answer to that ....)
Thanks for that Andrew. I should have known the news was out of date - it was on a cemmercial TV station. I really do hope we get a better system out of this affair.
The guy went onto the grass to avoid them and still hit someone. Wonder what the circumstances were - sometimes you just get unlucky (for both in this case).
I once killed a rabbit in the car. I saw it, slowed down, it jumped away - phew - then at the last minute it jumped pretty much under my tyre. Nothing I could do at that point.
I had someone on the bike path do that too, and a human not a rabbit. Rang the bell on approach to a group and most of them move to the left. One moves off to the right though and then has a bright idea to join the others by JUMPING IN FRONT OF ME. I'd slowed a lot by that time and avoided an accident but if i'd been going faster then kapow...
Last edited by nimm on Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
/ Giant OCR / Go Vegan /
Flock mentality kills...
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
That does it! I'm upgrading my bell to a siren.
Not to make light of a serious issue - but treating pedestrians as dumb creatures is not a bad position to take - a bit like saying "every car is out to get me" - except "every pedestrian is "blind, deaf and drunk"...
Seriously though, I'm all for separating cyclist from others esp. around the heavy usage areas...Should we start an email petition?
I think we should. Any ideas who we send it to?
It won't work. Not enough land to start with, we'd probably wind up back on the road and along wide parkland type strips, you'll never train pedestrians to stay off it.
The problem of scaring people is a bigger issue than the inattentive. Why? Because people remember the fright and quite often they've tried to do the right thing. When I hear complaints about cyclists, it always includes the line 'he came out of nowhere'. It doesn't matter that the twit got a fright because he was off in another world and not paying attention, all he'll remember is the fright.
I try to give a warning as early as possible. This not only gives them time to react ... five times in different directions, but the fainter, more distant sound of the bell seems to be gentler ie, they notice and react rather than panicking. Works fine if they hear it. By the time you've rung the thing three times you're both in trouble.
And, of course, there are those who will never react appropriately - you can do nothing about them except practicing your emergency swerve.
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it
On the stretch of land where this incident occurred, there is enough room to install a straight bike path on the grassed land next to the road (ie between the road and the current dual use path). No other land will be needed.
Pedestrians will prefer the current path because it's closer to the water, and although there will be a few who choose to ignore the signs, they will be in the minority. At the moment, the situation is not tenable. Too many walkers and cyclists use the stretch in question for them to share the path efficiently. If nothing gets done, or if the authorities try to impose a speed limit on cyclists, I'll start riding on the Riverside Drive because I believe being in traffic will be safer than riding on that path.
On the other side of the river, a shared use path has had an extra bit of pavement added, making it nearly twice as wide. There is a clear differentiation between cycle use and walkers, and nearly everyone sticks to it. This shows that if the authorities provide the space, most users will comply.
Same south of the river at Attadale (?). There is a section of split marked path. Seems to work well.
Doesn't the bit in South Perth have a Pedestrian Only lane and a Dual Use Path? There is no bike only lane, and that is what I think we need.
I think you may be correct Moo, but it works out anyway. It's a case where the rules don't need to be set in stone for the concept to work - walkers tend to keep to their section of the track, as do the cyclists.
There is a path clearly marked for cyclists, and another for pedestrians from the Causeway to Ellam St, but you always find pedestrians on the bike path (but not vice versa). Many people do use the pedestrian only path though. I had a near miss there with a pedestrian clearly seeing me and deciding to walk out in front of my bike anyway. Goes to show you always need to be careful.
13 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Cycleops70, Yahoo [Bot]